This paper extends the theoretical framework underlying the Community Informatics (CI) Studio. The CI Studio has been described as the use of studio-based learning (SBL) techniques to support enculturation into the field of CI. The SBL approach, closely related to John Dewey’s inquiry-based learning, is rooted in the apprenticeship model of learning in which students study with master designers or artists to develop their craft. In this paper, we introduce our critical interpretive sociotechnical (CIS) framework as the conceptual framework underlying the CI Studio course and pedagogy. In doing so, we explain how the CI Studio can be understood a pathway for advancing community-defined social justice goals through critical pedagogy and participatory design techniques. We describe our embrace of both critical and interpretive perspectives as the foundation upon which the CI Studio supports the following ideas: Instructors, students, and community partners can collaborate as co-learners and co-creators of knowledge exploring current topics in community informatics; theory and praxis can be brought together in dialog to ground transformative, liberative action and reflection in community spaces; and multiple perspectives can be embraced to promote a culture of epistemological pluralism. We conclude by providing a set of principles that summarize our CIS approach, particularly for those who wish to use and further develop the CI Studio pedagogy in their own research, teaching, and practice.YesRefereed Conference Proceedin

Rhinesmith, Colin

Wolske, Martin

SHAREOK repository

Community Informatics Studio: A Conceptual Framework

This paper extends the theoretical framework underlying the Community Informatics (CI) Studio. CI Studio has been described as the use of studio-based learning (SBL) techniques to support enculturation into the field of CI. The SBL approach, closely related to John Dewey's inquiry-based learning, is rooted in the apprenticeship model of learning in which students study with master designers or artists to develop their craft. In this paper, we explain how the CI Studio is understood a pathway for advancing community-defined development goals through participatory design techniques. In particular, we describe the interpretive and critical theoretical foundations of the CI Studio pedagogy as a venue in which: instructors, students, and community partners can collaborate as co-learners and co-creators of knowledge exploring current topics in community informatics; theory and praxis can be brought together in dialog to ground transformative, liberative action and reflection in community spaces; and diverse perspectives can be embraced to promote a culture of epistemological pluralism. We conclude by introducing our CI Studio Principles (1) for those who wish to use and further develop the CI Studio course and pedagogy, and (2) for those working with communities using technology in support of democracy and social inclusion, so that in dialogue they can work with others to define and work to achieve human flourishing.Ope

Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship Repository

  References(Addams, J. (1902). Democracy and social ethics. New York, NY: Macmillan Co.!Arnstein, S. R. (1969). “A ladder of citizen participation.” Journal of the American Planning Association. 35(4): 216-224.!Bishop, A., C. Bruce and S. Jeong. (2009). Beyond service learning. Service learning: Linking library education and practice. L. Roy, K. Jensen and A. H. Meyers (Eds.). Chicago, American Library Association: 16-31.!Bruce, B. C., A. Rubin, and J. An. (2009). Situated evaluation of socio-technical systems. Handbook of research on socio-technical design and social networking systems. B. Whitworth and A. de Moor (Eds.). Hershey: Information Science Reference: 685-698.!Day, P. (2011). "Community-based learning: A model for higher education and community partnerships." The Journal of Community Informatics 7(3). Available at http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/805/786!Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, The Macmillan Company.!Eubanks, V. (2011). Digital dead end: Fighting for social justice in the information age. Cambridge, MIT Press.!Feenberg, A. (1993). Critical theory of technology. New York, Oxford University Press. !Freire, P. (1970/1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, Continuum. !Gurstein, M. (2003). Effective use: A community informatics strategy beyond the Digital Divide. First Monday 8(12). Available at http://firstmonday.org/article/view/1107/1027!Kincheloe, J. L. and P. McLaren. (2005). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. (Eds.) Thousand Oaks, SAGE Publications Inc.: 303-342.!Lackney, J. A. (1999). “A history of the studio-based learning model.” Available at http://www.edi.msstate.edu/work/pdf/history_studio_based_learning.pdf !MacKenzie, D. and J. Wajcman. (1999). Introductory essay: The social shaping of technology. The social shaping of technology (2nd ed.). D. MacKenzie and J. Wajcman (Eds.). Buckingham, Open University Press: 3–27.!Stillman, L. and T. Denison. (2014). “The capability approach community informatics.” The Information Society 30: 200-211.!Stoecker, R. (2005). “Is CI good for communities?” The Journal of Community Informatics 1(3). Available at http://www.ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/183/129 !Stoecker, R. (2013). Research methods for community change: A project-based approach. Thousand Oaks, SAGE Publications Inc.!Whitworth, B. (2009). A brief introduction to sociotechnical systems. Encyclopedia of information science and technology (2nd Ed.). M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.). Hershey, Idea Group Reference. !Williamson, K. and G. Johanson. (2013). Research methods: Information, systems and contexts. Prahran VIC, Tilde University Press.!Winner, L. (1986). The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.!Wolske, M., C. Rhinesmith, and B. Kumar (2014). Community Informatics Studio: Designing Experiential Learning to Support Teaching, Research, and Practice. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 55(2): 166-177.!Zheng, W. and B. C. Stahl. (2011). “Technology, capabilities and critical perspectives: what can critical theory contribute to Sen’s capability approach?” Ethics and Information Technology 13: 69-80.!Introduc.on(Community Informatics (CI) Studio has been described as the use of studio-based learning (SBL) to support enculturation into the field of CI (Wolske et al., 2014). The SBL approach, closely related to John Dewey's inquiry-based learning, is rooted in the apprenticeship model of learning in which students study with master designers or artists to develop their craft. Teacher/student interaction unfolds collaboratively through the iterative aspects of the studio design process and models the studio space as a foundation for our CI studio pedagogy.!In this paper, we argue that the main contribution of the CI Studio to community informatics research, teaching, and practice can be found in its embrace of both interpretive and critical perspectives. We believe that this interpretive—critical approach is particularly important for preparing our students to work as information professionals with communities and to more effectively engage with community partners in a meaningful way that provides equal benefits to all. !We begin by highlighting the meta-theoretical assumptions guiding the CI Studio pedagogy to make visible our perspectives on three related topics: technology/society, teaching/learning, and research/knowledge. !   Meta1Theore.cal(Assump.ons Interpre.ve(Theory(In contrast to positivist researchers, who are primarily interested in prediction and control, interpretive researchers are concerned with describing and understanding phenomena “in the social world and their meanings in context” (Willamson and Johanson 2011 p. 123). (Cri.cal(Theory(Critical theory contributes a framework for investigating who ultimately benefits and who loses, particularly in the design, development, and implementation of ICTs. Criticalist researchers therefore might ask how do broader social, political, and economic contexts shape technology and its consequences for different groups in society? CI(Studio(Principles(1.  Knowledge of the world is socially constructed within specific historical and social contexts that are fundamentally mediated by power relations. Facts are always determined by some degree of ideological inscription (Kincheloe and McLaren 2009 p. 304);!2.  Theory and praxis must be brought together in dialog to ground transformative, liberative action and reflection in community spaces—an interpretive and critical approach;!3.  Instructors, students, and community partners in the CI Studio must be co-learners and co-creators of knowledge, and should benefit equally from their participation in CI projects;!4.  The starting point for any community engagement project must be an asset-based perspective that considers the bundle of resources each participant brings to the project, along with their capability sets allowing the conversion of these resources into valued doings and beings;!5.  Community-university partnerships should embody a high degree of citizen power, and energy should be intentionally focused on making sure the community gains ultimate control over the decision-making and managerial power (Arnstein 1967 p. 217) in CI projects;!6.  People’s everyday experiences with technology are essential gateways for understanding: (a) how oppressive systems in society reinforce existing inequalities, and (b) the role that technology plays in supporting these social processes;!7.  Assumptions about technology—and about those who use technology—deeply impact teaching, learning, research, and knowledge creation processes;!8.  Power and oppression—whether intentional or unintentional—shape ICTs and thus deliver unequal benefits for different groups in society;!9.  Therefore, great care and ongoing assessments are needed in research, teaching, and practice with community members in order to ensure that engagement (a) does not reinforce existing race, class, and gender inequalities, and (b) reduces the potential of causing any harm in community settings; !10. Difference must be embraced as a resource (Eubanks 2011 p. 27) and a strategy for promoting multiple ways of knowing—or a culture of epistemological pluralism.!Dr.(Colin(Rhinesmith1 and(Dr.(Mar.n(Wolske2 (1#School#of#Library#and#Informa4on#Studies,#University#of#Oklahoma#2Graduate#School#of#Library#and#Informa4on#Science,#University#of#Illinois#at#Urbana?Champaign#  CI Studio Research/Knowledge!Eubanks’s (2011) “technology experts”!Arnstein’s (1967) “ladder of participation”!Stillman & Denison’s (2014) “capability approach to community informatics!Stoecker’s (2005) “Is CI good for communities?” !Addams’s (1902) “pluralistic approach to knowledge creation”!Stoecker’s (2013) “community organizing” approach to community development!Teaching/Learning!Dewey’s (1938) “the meaning of purpose”!Lackney’s (1999) “studio-based learning”!Freire’s (1970/1993) “banking concept of education” !Bishop, Bruce, & Jeong’s (2009) From “service learning” to learning with community, or “community inquiry” !Day’s (2011) “community learning theory”!Friere’s (1970/1993) “praxis” as both “reflection and action”!Technology/Society!Sociotechnical Foundations!Gurstein’s (2003) “effective use” of technology!Stoecker’s (2005) “CI as a supporting role”!Bruce, Rubin & An’s (2009) “situated evaluation”!Whitworth’s (20090 “sociotechnical systems approach”!Critical Perspectives!MaKenzie & Wacjman’s (1999) “social shaping of technology”!Zheng & Stahl’s (2009) “criticalist capability approach”!Winner’s (2005) “politics of technological artifacts”!Feenberg’s (1993) “critical theory of technology”!

English

IDEALS @ Illinois

https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/54522/cirn_2014_poster_final.pdf?sequence=2

Community Informatics Studio: A Conceptual Framework

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

SHAREOK repository

Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship Repository

IDEALS @ Illinois