Editorial:


Putting Our Work in Context


 


Michael Gurstein


New Jersey Institute of Technology
< gurstein@adm.njit.edu >


 


In February of
this year I had the opportunity of participating in the Canadian West Coast
Community Networking Summit, “Strategic Use of Information and Communication
Technology for Communities,” in Vancouver, Canada. 


 


( http://www.2005summit.ca/  ).  The event was a striking success in
that it attracted some 500 participants, almost all from the two western
provinces of Canada; a very large proportion of Canadian aboriginals (First
Nations); and community technology activists and researchers.  Few, if any of those attending
indicated any hesitation as to the kinds of changes and opportunities that
community ICTs were providing to their communities.


 


I attended as a
member of the Canadian Research Alliance for Community Innovation and
Networking (CRACIN) and also of the Community Informatics Research Network
(CIRN), both of which sponsored or co-sponsored events as part of the overall
“Summit”.


 


A number of
things were notable during the 4 days of presentations, meetings, workshops,
plenaries, informal chats in corridors and bars, and formal dinners:


	The positive impact that community-based ICTs
     are having in providing opportunities for economic and social development
     in marginalized and remote communities throughout a vast and diverse
     region. 
	The powerful vision that is emerging of local
     empowerment and further advances in such areas as remote health care and
     local e-governance. 
	The sense that the technology is an enabler for
     all and not simply for those with existing advantages of education or
     technical proficiency but that there is a continuing need for creating
     technical capacity at the local level. 
	The need for research and understanding of the
     processes and activities as a means for continuing self-understanding and
     improvement. 
	The role that many Canadian First Nations are
     seeing for ICTs as leveling the playing field for their participation in
     Canadian society (a striking example of this is found in the report from
     K-Net in this issue) 



 


While on the one
side there was optimism and enthusiasm for the future, on the other side was a
deep concern that the basis for much of this development – a commitment
by the Canadian Government to ensure a degree of “access” (connectivity) for
all – was in the process of being declared “achieved” with the result
that Government support and attention was shifting to other areas. 


 


Many
practitioners attending the event were particularly welcoming of the
participation by we researchers as they were looking to us as a means for
identifying and documenting the positive benefits that had been achieved to
date and as a source of support in developing the convincing evidence for continued
support in these areas from politicians and government policy makers. 


 


And overall,
there was a concern for “sustainable” financing models for Community Based
Technology initiatives given the long-term instability of current Government
funding approaches.


 


There was a
considerable interest on the part of the community technology practitioners in
the work of the researchers.  The
practitioners were looking to us for ways of documenting impacts and outcomes
and for methodologies by which they could achieve self-understanding and self-assessment
of appropriate and useful operating models and practices. In this way a set of
on-going working relationships between researchers and community practitioners were
being developed on a broader basis than the specifics of an individual
university-based research project and this was being anchored with the
background context of quite specific and directed policy processes.


 


This is the
third issue of the Journal, and I’m delighted to say that we have been very
well received by colleagues worldwide and by a range of researchers,
practitioners and policy staff. The most “popular” article from the first
issue, Scott Robinson of the Universidad Metropolitana, Mexico “Towards a Neo-Apartheid System of
Governance in Latin America –Implications for the Community Informatics
Guild”, has been down-loaded 2200 times; and from the
second issue. Stephen James Musgrave of The Fylde College in the UK’s piece “Community Portals: A False Dawn over the
Field of Dreams?” has been downloaded 1200 times.  We now have over 250
registered “subscribers” and some 100 contributors and the equivalent number of
signed-up reviewers. 


 


It is probably a
bit early to start checking citation indexes, but I am beginning to see
references to CI Journal articles appearing in some conference and student
project papers and we have a bit of a back-log in contributions for up-coming
issues and offers to edit special issues on special topic areas.


 


So, by the
various obvious measures we have begun to fill the academic need. By the other,
and probably more significant measures, that is whether we are making a
contribution to the discipline, to the field, to researchers, to practitioners
or to policy development, of course remains to be seen but my hope (and
expectation) and I think that of all those involved with this effort are that
we will have impacts and outcomes in those areas as well.


 


This issue
reflects the diversity of research (and practice) in the area of CI, including:



	Garth Graham’s challenging Point Of View,
     “Community Networking As Radical Practice.” 
	Susana Finquelievich and Graciela Kisilevsky
     study on an emerging model for community ICT governance from Argentina “Community Democratization Of Telecommunications Community Cooperatives In Argentina: The Case Of Telpin”, 
	Chris Hagar and Caroline Haythornthwaite’s fascinating
     account of the use of community networking as a response to the local foot
     and mouth crisis in the UK “Crisis, Farming & Community.” 
	Anikar Haselhoff’s very interesting preliminary
     look at a field project examining Cybercafes in India from a Community
     Informatics perspective “Cybercafés And Their Potential As Community
     Development Tools In India’, 
	Anna Malina and Ian Ball’s review of the
     community technology policy processes in Scotland in “ICTs And Community
     And Suggestions For Further Research In Scotland”, 
	Larry Stillman and Randy Stoecker’s paper on a
     case study of a Community Informatics program in Australia looking for its
     way forward “Structuration, ICTs, And Community Work.” 
	Randy Stoecker’s valuable and provocative essay
     on whether “Community Informatics Is Good For Communities?” 
	Reports from K-Net on the development of their
     ICT enabled local High School and on its future in E-Health and
     Telemedicine. and. 
	An extremely interesting video report on a
     Workshop on ICT research with Aboriginal Communities from the RICTA
     network (Research on ICTs with Aboriginal Communities).