Community Informatics Multimedia Archive

Community informatics has been given various definitions, such as this one from the Community Informatics Research Network:

…brings together people concerned with electronically enabling local (and virtual) communities; and structuring collaborations between researchers, practitioners (including industry) and policy makers to support community ICT implementation and effective use.

Definitions such as the one above appropriately name various constituencies, thus serving organizational needs. But for me they are oddly both too narrow, excluding legitimate elements and activities, and too broad, lacking a principled organization or rationale.

Inquiry cycle

The Inquiry Cycle

I’d like to suggest an alternative, drawing from the experience of the Community informatics Initiative (CII) at the University of Illinois, as well as helpful discussion with CII staff and students. The organizational principle that I’d like to suggest is that community informatics is a form of disciplined inquiry, with central questions, methods of investigation, actions, collaborations, and theories. I’d like to present that here using the the Inquiry Cycle as a framework and CII activities as concrete examples.

The Inquiry Cycle (Bruce, 2009) characterizes inquiry as involving five major aspects: a guiding question (Ask), methods of investigation (Investigate), active participation (Create), collaboration and dialogue (DIscuss), and reflection (Reflect). These aspects don’t necessarily proceed in a prescribed order; inquiry may involve any of the aspects in varying degrees and orders. For example, Reflect is often the beginning point of inquiry, leading to the formulation of the Ask. The idea of cycle (or better, spiral) suggests that inquiry does not complete, but generates further inquiries.

Community Informatics as a Type of Inquiry

The definition below is rather lengthy. Think of the Ask as the core question that defines community inquiry. The other elements then elaborate on that, emphasizing the variety of approaches needed to address the core question.

Ask: How can we work with communities to learn about democratic participation in the digital age, and to promote engagement with information and communication technologies for both individual and community growth?

Investigate: CII investigates the ways that people in communities create and share knowledge, how social networks operate and evolve, how access to technologies is differentially distributed, especially along lines of race and class, and the development of policy regarding information and communication technologies. These communities may be large or small, geographically-based or online. The goal of these investigations is to learn more about the dynamics of communities, their capacities and challenges, and how they make use, or not, of various tools. Basic research such as this is necessary for informed and meaningful action with communities.

Create: CII builds tools, such as Prairienet, Community Inquiry Labs, geographic information systems, media archives, and computer technology centers. It works with organizations such as Books to Prisoners, S.O.A.R. [after-school program]@ B.T. Washington Elementary, Paseo Boricua, and others to expand opportunities for learning and to support social justice. Building as well as using tools in a critical manner not only addresses immediate needs; it’s a key aspect of learning about community informatics.

Discuss: CII provides forums for interaction and collaboration, such as the Journal of Community Informatics, CI Reflections blog, and the CI Research Series. A diversity of theories and methods are not only welcomed, but seen as necessary for understanding diverse and changing social and technological realities.

Reflect: CII helps make sense of experiences of communities as they use information and communication to address their needs. It also critically analyzes its own inquiries, its tools, and its modes of interaction and collaboration. These reflections help build stronger accounts of community informatics, including extensions of critical race theory, political economy, critical literacy, as well as the development of new frameworks, such as the theory of community inquiry, and generate new questions for further inquiry.

References

Bruce, Bertram C. (2009, April). “Building an airplane in the air”: The life of the inquiry group. In Joni Falk & Brian Drayton (eds.), Creating and sustaining online professional learning communities. New York: Teachers College Press. [ISBN: 0-807749-40-0]

Cross-posted on Chip’s Journey

On Sunday, March 8, 2009 the LIS 490 CEL Community Engagement class visited the Jane Addams Hull-House Museum. In addition to learning about the day-to-day activities that took place within the settlement house, the class was treated to rich historical information. Lisa Lee, the museum director, spoke of the importance in connecting the museum with prominent leaders that are perhaps less often discussed, but co-existed with Jane Addams. An example of this type of leader was Ida B. Wells. Like Jane Addams, Ida B. Wells was involved in the Peace Movement and served as a critical force in ensuring equal rights for the African-American community during the late 1800’s/early 1900’s. To learn more about Ida, see the museum’s site for information on their special Ida B. Wells exhibit.

Lisa Lee also demonstrated that there are diverse views, or “truths”, within history. The video below is Lisa Lee’s discussion of forensic history versus narrative history:

As a student in this class, I walked away from Hull-House asking how our choices in viewing and analyzing history have an impact on Community Informatics and the library world at large. I suppose that of great significance is the understanding that movements are shared and we should continually seek a better understanding of all the players involved. We should also work to understand the various histories that exist within our communities and ask ourselves which are most significant to the community. Do we care about facts? Or do we care about experiences?

I used the phrase “Education for Liberation” in my entrance essay for GSLIS because I believe education is undeniably crucial in creating real systemic social change.   It’s also why I decided to enter LIS because as information providers we can and should play a huge role in shaping education initiatives, promoting lifelong learning and supporting participatory democracy and social change efforts

One thing I have been struggling with in some of my classes though is the way in which we frame this need for education and more specifically *whose* education we are talking about.  There is no doubt that the state of education in the United States today is mired in inequality on the basis of race and class.  The unequal distribution of funding and resources to schools, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), etc. are clearly perpetuating cycles of poverty and criminalization in poor communities and communities of color.  Education reform is crucial to combat this devastating cycle and create real change.

There have been many times in which comments are made about this need for education for ‘those’ who need it most.  My struggle with this framework is two-fold.  For one it often feels like in our classes we talk about race and class in this coded way (“those”), which is simply problematic.  I think as CI emerges we need to come up with ways to more explicitly address race and class because so much of the work CI focuses on is with and related to disenfranchised communities, and because many folks coming into the CI field may not necessarily be from the communities they will end up supporting.    As wonderful as online education is, I think in this regard the online format is a difficult medium to address the very hard, personal and complex issues of race and class that do need to be discussed.

The second part of my struggle has to do with vision.  We live in a culture where white, heterosexual, able-bodied men have access to the most privilege and power.  My vision for liberation isn’t to have access to their power and privilege and replicate and support an oppressive power structure – my vision is to do things differently and do things right.  It’s similar to the debate around legalizing gay marriages.  Yes this is an important battle and LGBTQ folks should absolutely have access to the same rights as heterosexuals –but legalizing gay marriage (ie accessing what the privileged have) will not automatically liberate LGBTQ folks.  Instead of fighting to be a part of structures we’ve been denied – we have to create new structures.  All this to say, the other piece that’s been lacking in this education conversation/framework, is the role of educating folks with privilege about their privilege and power in supporting liberation work and moving towards the world we want to live in.

I’m not exactly sure how to infuse this into the curriculum and program in a meaningful way, but it’s something that’s been on my mind for a while now.  Also, I realize that I express some strong opinions here and I hope I did not offend anyone.  I’ve also gained a lot of insight from conversations and readings on education that I have done in my classes, and have been very appreciative of and excited about the pro-Freire/popular education readings and discussion.

Yesterday was the second session in a six week long project at the Urbana Free Library.  Kristin, myself, Chris, and Chera (all CI graduate students) along with Carol Inskeep (UFL librarian) are teaching a group of teenagers (around the ages of 11-15) how to use camera equipment and formulate a script for a short film.  The project is a partnership between the Urbana Free Library, Community Informatics students, and Urbana Public Television.

I was really impressed by the improvement of the teenagers from last week to yesterday’s session.  Last week we gave the boys (yes they are all boys) quite a bit of free reign.  We showed them how to use the cameras then set them loose on the library.  They had fun, but the material they produced was all over the place with little focus.  This week we sent them on a “video scavenger hunt” around the library.  They had to film themselves completing certain tasks such as asking the reference librarian for pirate books while talking in pirate speak, finding a book about dinosaurs while wearing a dinosaur mask, reciting a poem out of a book for the camera, etc.  Once the boys were provided with a little more direction and structure to their camera work, they did an excellent job of focusing and completing the tasks.  It was a great exercise which I had a fun time helping lead.

The groups also sat down and brainstormed ideas for their overall video project.  I’m looking forward to seeing how they organize the ideas into a film.  They are a great group of guys who have a lot of potential.  I hope the next four weeks go as well as last night.

-Susan

Monday afternoon, February 23rd, a group of about 20 students and staff braved the chilly midwestern weather to attend a lecture for the co-sponsored by Information in Society Speaker Series and the Community Informatics Initiative. Karen Mossberger, Associate Professor of Public Administration at the University of Illinois at Chicago, presented a lecture on her recent book, Digital Citizenship: The Internet, Society and Participation co-authored by Caroline J. Tolbert and Ramona S. McNeal. The book demonstrates the effects of technology disparities on the equality of opportunity.

Mossberger defined Digital Citizenship as full participation in society online. A digital citizen is someone who is a full member of society online. Mossberger defines a full user as a person who uses the internet on a daily basis. Using data already collected, Digital Citizenship reported findings that suggest internet use at work increases wages, and that less-educated workers and minorities can benefit the most from technology use at work. It is clear that disparities remain in online participation despite the growth of the population of digital citizens, as shown by an in-depth analysis of gaps among minorities, the poor, and the less educated. Mossberger noted that even in people under the age of 32, race is still a factor affecting disparities to internet access. Further, more in depth study of internet use is needed to drive public policy, which is needed to address educational, and technology disparities to attain full online participation for all.

I think that Digital Citizenship provides a good overview of how people use the internet but I feel that more in-depth qualitative studies might help to answer more questions about particular user groups, especially since there can be overlap between groups. I was not surprised that the findings found gaps among minorities, the poor, and the less educated. However, I was surprised to find out that when controlling for other factors that race is still a factor affecting disparities to internet access for people under the age of 32. The passage of time alone is not enough to remedy the issue. Proactive advocacy for change is needed, and progressive activism over neutrality is the charge facing current and future librarians.

Written by IMLS fellow Kristin Palmer