Is the Participatory Web really in parallel with participatory development?
September 25th, 2007 by HollyAshley
Interview with Jon Corbett, Steering Committee, Web2forDev Conference, Rome, 25th September 2007
On my second day at the conference venue here at FAO in Rome, I feel that I am delving a little deeper into how – and whether – Web 2.0 is actually participatory. But I still want to investigate this further: exactly how are the Web 2.0 community of practice integrating participatory approaches to development with ‘participatory’ web?
I wanted to get to grips with some comments I had heard about Web 2.0 since I had arrived in Rome. First, I wanted I wanted to question Steering Committee member Jon Corbett about what the differences are between ICTs (Information and Communication Technologies) and Web 2.0, with its plethora of applications such as blogging, vblogging, audioblogging, wikis, and social bookmarking.
According to Corbett, Web 2.0 is still a form of ICT – ICT is just an umbrella term, which covers all forms of digital information technologies. ‘But,’ Corbett argues, ‘Web 2.0 is markedly different from other ICTs. It doesn’t just solicit; it thrives on the participation of people. It’s what fundamentally makes it different. Web 2.0 wouldn’t exist if it weren’t populated by people using it.’
But perhaps more importantly, I also wanted to probe deeper into a comment Corbett made on Sunday, before the conference.
‘Web 2.0 is parallel to participatory development,’ Corbett had stated. ‘It’s about empowering people to take a role, it’s about citizen media.’ So I asked him today, why do you describe it as parallel to participatory development?
‘Ah, it’s not exactly parallel,’ he says, and goes on to explain. ‘I’ve been working with digital information technology with indigenous communities since 1995. In the past, it was different. All the content was produced with communities, but there was a steep learning curve in terms of the technology. But with Web 2.0, it simplifies how people interact – and it thrives on people contributing knowledge, and hence the comparison to participatory development.’
Essentially, what Corbett argues is that Web 2.0 requires the active participation of people in creating the content online – unlike in the past, when technical experts traditionally drove the uses of ICTs, in both the set-up and populating with content.
‘The technical experts were essentially the gatekeepers of the technology,’ Corbett says. ‘But Web 2.0 now offers opportunities for communities to interact with the technology – anyone can create content, you don’t have to be an expert.’
So is this why he describes it as parallel to participatory development? ‘Yes, as it’s about direct engagement, not about being represented by experts,’ says Corbett.
But, I argue, what about those without the time, access or inclination to take part in Web 2.0 for development?
‘There will still be a lot of people who are passive recipients rather than active participants,’ agrees Corbett, ‘But you could argue that this is the same as any other form of development today. The main difference is that Web 2.0 invites everyone to participate – and there’s no requirement any longer for it to be expert driven.’
‘It’s about early adopters,’ Corbett continues. ‘Early adopters of the technologies and applications get on board – just look at the people who are attending this conference. People like Ethan Zuckerman with Global Voices , or Kado Muir [who is presenting a session at Web2forDev on the ‘Outback Movement for Cultural Survival Using Web 2.0: An Aboriginal Case Study’]. These people have already identified that their communities, or the communities they work with, can benefit from Web 2.0.’
It’s good to know that there are real examples of participatory development integrated with Web 2.0 applications out there, within this community of practice. I feel that I am a little closer to understanding this ‘mash-up’ of participatory approaches and ‘participatory web’. But I still have more questions to ask….
Dear Holly,
I read your contribution with much interest. But I would like to comment on one of your questions on accessibility.
“But, I argue, what about those without the time, access or inclination to take part in Web 2.0 for development?”
We encountered this questin also many times about ten years ago when we started to develop e-learning courses within a developement context. Basically this question can be asked for every initiative in the world, but it should not disqualify the initiatives. For every project you define a target group and try to reach them. Some you have to exclude (in your effort) because they have different needs. For instance illiterate people, although they can learn to use the Internet, it would be much better to focus on education to learn to read and write.
The question therefore is not if you are able to reach everybody, but if you are reaching the ‘right people’.
regards,
Vic
[…] content is there and how can it be virtually exchanged in a rather oral culture? Moses Kisembo and Jon Corbett summarized it nicely in a discussion we had. What helps all these new forms of information and […]
I think a lot is made of how ICTs can help in development and poverty reduction. I live in India, have worked extensively in participatory digital video and sustainability research, and travel a lot to the ‘poorest’ districts of the country (that makes up nearly most of the country!) and can say with the confidence that comes from first hand observation that the poor are far far away from using the web. The examples are merely examples: rare exceptions that voluble techno-freaks amplify, only to mislead a lot of us into thinking that information technologies can do any good to the poor. If probed deeply, any of these examples would not pass the test of affordability or sustainability once the artificial support on which an experiment is flaunted is removed. People caught up in day-to-day survival have no inclination or energy or access to link up with the web and profit from it. We must realise that all technology except the very simplest and robust (and web is certainly not simple, and is actually very fragile) is designed to help those with capital. All technology is a way to create inequality, not reduce it. Like the gun, it is a weapon in the hands of those who can afford it, to subjugate those who cannot. If web was such a good news for the poor, the world wou;ld not have seen a dramatic increase in poverty as it has over the last 10-15 years it has been around. Its thanks to the web that we now have globalisation of trade and production, which has (as numerous studies have proved) increased poverty.
Pankaj
Hi,
I would like to comment Pankaj post.
I have been working extensively in Africa and I quite agree with you. I have seen very few villages with electricity, less with PCs and even less or none with internet connection but I think that this is also one of the thing we should still work on it.
On the other hand I still see a huge potential for web 2.0 in Aid. Web 2.0 has a strong potential for collaborative work and I think that international organisation should start using it as soon as possible. If they do not use it is because of polical agendas, competition among agencies and the big fear that their bad results will be discovered by everybody.
Agency like Unicef base their “income” on huge marketing, but I have never seen nothing more than “donate money to children” in their campaigns. Did people in developed countries ever visited a Unicef project, do they know real results? no, nothing. An d they could do whatever they want and still asking money for childred. Unicef is just the big example, but many agencies are the same and they reflect our failure and developing countries failures.
I think that web 2.0 could halp us in enhancing accountability of international organisation and help many heads of agencies finding their way home to retirement and political agendas to change.
Andrea
Holly(…)But, I argue, what about those without the time, access or inclination to take part in Web 2.0 for development?(…)
I agree with both Andrea, Pankaj and Holly that only a minority of people are connected in developing areas. But just like Andrea I believe in web2.0 as a strengthening evolution. Because of the participatory strength of web2.0, I believe that even if only a minority will use the participatory web, this will make a huge difference on developing areas. If any change can be done, change must be stimulated by those target people. Only by their knowledge essential changes will take effect.
Just imagine (I believe there are such communities, but I have no links to them yet) that a community with similar knowledge and expertise can communicate/discuss on expertise and knowledge in another communities, this will strenghten all of them. Once those communities strengthen and learn from themselves, they will grow and be able to push their knowledge into the global knowledge sphere.
As to the speed with which people (children) with no IT-skills can learn, I gladly add the research and project of Sugata Mitra: ‘hole in the wall’
http://www.globalvision.org/program/how/how.html
a project that even got Tamil speaking children to learn an english course on biotechnology just by leaving them to their own devices.
question: if any of you know about web2.0 communities in developing areas, would you mind giving links to them? Thank you