Interview with Christian Kreutz, GTZ, Web2forDev Conference, Rome 24^th February 2007.  

Monday was a preliminary workshop day, prior to the start of the main Web2forDev conference in Rome. Participants were introduced to various web-based applications that are part of the Web 2.0. One of the presentations was about blogging. 

Presenter Christian Kreutz, of GTZ in Germany, described blogging as a very powerful communication tool: blogging is ‘a two-way conversation…’ – a great way of creating ‘virtual meeting spaces’ and sharing ‘first hand experience of what is going on in the field’. But perhaps not everyone agrees. Andrew Keen once referred to the emerging Web 2.0 – and phenomena such as blogging – as the latest and greatest ‘seduction’.[1] He argues that it will drown out traditional media and the ‘authoritative voice’, plunging us into a ‘nightmare of over-abundance’ of information and authors. However, Christian argues that ‘many blogs are covering niche topics that traditional media might not otherwise cover. The traditional media already rely a lot on blogs to get information from places such as Iraq or Lebanon.’ 

Yet according to Christian, there is still a general misunderstanding of what blogging is – and what it is useful for. So I asked him, how do we – the users – know what information is accurate or important to us? And, given that anyone can blog – to give opinion, fact or perspectives – how can we know or even define what is useful and relevant?  

‘It takes time to write, time to read and time to digest blogs. But, Web 2.0 applications can also bring you to blogs – there are blogging hubs that gather information so that you can follow up on your own chosen theme… and interesting new technologies like RSS feeds mean that you can see how popular different blogs are. And out of these numbers we can see what people jump on.’ To put it simply, these RSS applications are capable of generating qualitative information and statistics, and so monitoring how popular different blogs are. And Christian’s argument is that the more people read or respond to different posts in blogs, the more ‘authoritative’ the information contained in those posts can be said to be. But is the majority voice synonymous with quality? 

Blogs are now increasingly being used by intermediate development organisations, which are using them as a strategic organisational tool to share information and knowledge. So how are these organisations accountable to the people that they are apparently representing on these blogs?  

Interestingly, Christian commented that in his opinion, blogging ‘is still completely underestimated by the development scene’. Whilst he agrees that there is a lot of information generated, which is not necessarily accurate or useful, he also argues that the essence of blogging is that it creates a two-way conversation, which in turn creates its own feedback loops. The theory is that these feedback loops circulate between people at the grassroots, intermediate development organisations, donor organisations, IFIs and policy makers. He believes that this will be profoundly important in the development sector, creating a monitoring and evaluation system which will in turn push for better practice. ‘If a project isn’t working, people will write about it from the field.’

 Web 2.0 protagonists passionately believe that applications like blogging will open up a whole new era of openness and accountability in development. These all-important feedback loops will ensure greater accountability, transparency and representation, from the grassroots to the policy makers. 

Is blogging open to abuse? ‘Yes,’ says Christian candidly. ‘But it’s an open, cultural conversation. I’m amazed how well it works in many different contexts.’ He agrees that blogging can be very political, and also very partisan. However, he also argues that it’s not all about blogging. Face-to-face meetings are still fundamentally important – and what use is your blog if no-one knows it exists? ‘Just to have a blog alone, that isn’t the thing. You have to do something more to be a network. You have to interact, to make your blog known, and to convince other organisations to join in – it’s an overlap – many things have to come together.’ 

But perhaps his main message is that it is a low-cost, easy to implement technology that gets results. There are still clear disadvantages to the South, for example with connectivity. And more time is needed to develop capacities within organisations wanting to use blogging in their communications strategies. But while there may still be challenges to overcome, Christian’s premise is that blogging really can be a form of democratised, accountable knowledge sharing – where the majority voice can also become the authoritative voice.  

A final thought: Who is participating in the creation of ‘the majority voice’? How truly participatory is Web 2.0? What participatory processes are the Web 2.0 community of practice using? Is Participatory Web for Development a reality – on the ground as well as in cyberspace? The answers will emerge over the rest of the conference…

Trackback URI | Comments RSS