Collaborative technological solutions, which require a certain amount of connectivity, run the inherent risk of creating digital divides between those who can access the technology and/or the network (and hence participate in the collaboration) and those who cannot. Such digital inequalities and technological discriminations are not solely determined by socio-economic factors. They can also be the result of the structurally unsound design of such technological solutions or cultural differences in ‘digital literacy’, for example between generations, or existing gender, class, ethnicity divides. There are ways of designing the system so that the information can be accessed by those who may have access needs, perhaps based on disability. So when setting up a collaborative information management system, it is important to consider who might be cut off from the collaboration, how and when. The focus needs to be constantly on a very wide notion of who may come into contact with the system and how they would interact, based on their diverse characteristics.
Guiding Questions
Does your collaborative information management system exclude specific stakeholders due to the simple fact that they have no means of accessing the technologies/network?
Are there ways to rectify this by introducing different channels of communication in order to broaden your reach?
What extra resources would you need to broaden your reach and overcome any potential digital divides and is such a move justifiable?
Do you test how others might interact with your system using a wide range of available access-supporting technology and systems?
Do you strip out all non-essential components in the design of your system and present the information in a clean, universally accessible manner?
Comments 2
In the context of the Maciv Project, that looks at the case study of Hurricane Irma in Cuba. I firstly started to thinking on ELSI related issue, especially in relation to integration of civilians into crisis management process, the digital divided become an unexpected (for me) aspect to consider.
For my case study, I specifically focused on private and public Facebook groups. We could not know anything about those who were left behind for lack of access to social media, internet or technology. Not just because of the failure of communications but because of lack of access.
In fact the study don’t take into consideration:
– people who could not connect with internet
– people who could not have access to internet
– people who do not have access to technology (devises)
There are civilian networks offline that were organising to respond to the crisis, but we could not have access to them.
Dear Robin
thank you very much for your comment. I think you raise important questions for future research.
For those interested in following up on Maciv, I’ve found a link to the project here
http://www.agence-nationale-recherche.fr/Project-ANR-17-CE39-0015.
The project aims at:
1) Studying the re-organization of information flows between citizens/volunteers on-site or on-line, operational stakeholders and crisis managers at the time of a crisis to support the i) integration of volunteers and citizens in the crisis management and response processes and ii) resilience of the affected community;
2) Designing and deploying, in close collaboration with the end-users, a mediation platform dedicated to integrate efficiently and smoothly data from heterogeneous (and potentially non-dedicated) data sources, including social media, and to translate it into “understandable” information for stakeholders.
The E2mC project might also be interesting, as it aims at demonstrating the technical and operational feasibility of the integration of social media analysis and crowdsourced information within both the Mapping and Early Warning Components of Copernicus Emergency Management Service.
https://www.e2mc-project.eu