Transcript * Local Learning and Transferring of Best Practices Jukka Oksa [email protected] University of Joensuu, Karelian Institute Joensuu, 18 February 2009 * From Network Concept to New Communities for Development 1.

*
Local Learning
and Transferring
of Best Practices
Jukka Oksa
[email protected]
University of Joensuu, Karelian Institute
Joensuu, 18 February 2009
*
From Network Concept to New
Communities for Development
1. Problems of transfer through projects:
The Case of the Community Net Model
2. Lessons about transferring Models
through Study trips in Deserve project
3. Features of Community for Development
Community Network
”Learning Karelia Hills”
2000-01
Valtimo
Nurmes
Juuka
Net can be accessed from
Lieksa
Ilomantsi
Tuupovaara
- inhabitants about 45 000
- registered users over 9 000
(spring 2001)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
workplace
schools
open access kiosks
home
abroad
with FirstClass-software
Internet-browser
*
Community Nets in North Karelia and
Finnish OSKU Learning Regions
(Funded by Sitra Foundation)
Upper Karelia Nurmes, Juuka, Valtimo
Karelian Hills extension Lieksa, Ilomantsi, Tuupovaara
Central Karelia and Outokumpu district (Oppiva)
Kesälahti, Kitee, Rääkkylä, Tohmajärvi, Värtsilä,
Outokumpu, Polvijärvi
North Lapland Sodankylä, Inari, Utsjoki
Kainuu Osku Hyrynsalmi, Kuhmo, Paltamo, Ristijärvi,
Suomussalmi
Pieksämäki district (PiiSavo) Haukivuori, Jäppilä,
Kangasniemi, Pieksämäki, Pieksämäen mlk, Virtasalmi
Padasjoki district (ePäijänne) Padasjoki, Asikkala,
Sysmä, Kuhmoinen
East-Uusimaa (Kehä 5) Lapinjärvi, Liljendal, Myrskylä,
Pernaja, Pukkila
East Turku urban area
Helsinki Maunula (Nettimaunula) urban area
Turunmaa Archipelago Dragsfjärd, Houtskari, Iniö, Kemiö,
Korppoo, Nauvo, Parainen, Västanfjärd
Oksa & Turunen 2002
Earlier
Model
Studies
Area
Success story
*
Model of Best Practice
Upper Karelia Project Model
Net content
Community
net
Project
activities
Free
access points
Peer
trainers
Users
*
*
Model of Best Practice
Open Access Kiosks
+ the most densely networked periphery in the
world (open access point for every 600 inh.)
+ access for those not having computer
+ shops, banks, post offices, libraries
+ clubrooms of youth, pensioners, and
unemployed
- not finding space for kiosks in the most remote
villages
Oksa & Turunen: Evaluation Study of the Learning Upper Karelia, 2000
*
Model of Best Practice
Peer Training
+ against digital divide: basic computer skills
for all, including the unemployed, small
entrepreneurs, youth, pensioners, voluntary
associations
+ building upon local knowledge: the
unemployed were trained to become project
workers: peer trainers, support persons,
network managers
+ support to school classes and parents
Oksa & Turunen: Evaluation Study of the Learning Upper Karelia, 2000
*
Computer training and network access for all
Success story
*
Success story
Learning Karelian Hills Network
Registered Users by Municipality,
31 December 2001
Nurmes
Juuka
Valtimo
Lieksa
Ilomantsi
Tuupovaara
Together
Number
Share of
population
2 595
1 549
892
1 885
920
374
8 215
26,8 %
23,8 %
30,3 %
12,6 %
13,2 %
16,8 %
19,0 %
In addition there were about 700 users
from outside the region.
Oksa & Turunen: Evaluation of the Learning Karelian Hills Project, 2002
*
Model of Best Practice
Professor Manuel Castells in Upper Karelia, December 2000
Problems in Transferring to new Locations
1. Short-time project vs. local continuities
2. Connecting to local interests and values
3. Creating local network contents
4. Focusing and prioritizing
*
Problems in new locations
1. Short-time project vs. local continuities
• Connecting to the network of municipality
administration was difficult. Opposing gatekeepers
in some localities
• Lacking time (18 months was too short time to
start new processes.)
• Short term employment of project workers (trainers
and managers), breaks in the middle of project.
Jukka Oksa & Jarno Turunen 2002
*
Problems in new locations
2. Difficulties in connecting to local
interests and values
• Finding hosts for open access kiosks, different
interests and changing rules.
• Struggles over technology:
- Lay users: “Information technology is not for us.”
- Experts: “This is wrong software for us.”
• Users did not feel the network as their own "It
became a teaching project, not a learning
project."
Jukka Oksa & Jarno Turunen 2002
*
Problems in new locations
3. Creating local network contents
• Lacking skills of content makers
• Lacking motivation or understanding of the
possibilities, administration and enterprises felt
that existing www -homepages were enough.
• Lacking of local participation
Jukka Oksa & Jarno Turunen 2002
*
Problems in new locations
4. Focusing and prioritizing
• Conflicts that were not solved in the beginning.
• Too narrow target focus (e.g. school kids) or two
competing aims (net portal and First Class based
net) in a project.
• Expectation that the Funding Partner decides
over local conflicts
Jukka Oksa & Jarno Turunen 2002
Transferring of models (1): Hopeful Thinking
Models of the
Best Practice
Local Activities
and Solutions,
Place A
Transferring
of models:
seminars,
study trips,
presentations,
www pages,
media
Information
and
experiences
about models
Learning from
others
Local Activities
and Solutions,
Place B
Conclusion about for Study Trips as a
tool for transferring models
- The study group on a trip should consist of persons with
different and complementary skills, who have however a
common objective (problem).
- The trip should be an opportunity to learn to know new
people who have similar interests and challenges.
- The joint learning process should be continued after the
trip in group discussions and seminars.
- The trip should support a longer process of networking
and co-operation.
Transferring of models (2): Learning Together
Joint Learning Overcomes Barriers Learning
together
of Transferring Experience:
1) Helps to overcome problems of mediation and
interpretation of experiences.
2) Integrates the exchange of formal and informal
(tacit knowledge, e.g. experience).
3) Connects common objectives with understanding
of different contexts.
4) Calls for the participation of different kinds of
partners (different administrative levels, public,
private, voluntary sectors, etc.), which extends
networks.
Policy Conclusions
Learning
together
1) Policies should target more on Joint Learning
instead of transferring models.
2) Transfer of models or dissemination of the Best
Practices is futile (an empty token), if it is not part
of Joint Learning processes.
3) Joint Learning leads to larger networks, improved
and more sustainable impacts, and wider
participation.
*
Explanations of Success and Failure
Concepts explaining Success and
Failure
- Changing Context
- Learning Networks
*
*
Explanations of Success and Failure
Changing Contexts: Place and Time
- Development processes cannot be
understood out of their context (local,
social, cultural).
- Different local resources. Different actors
with objectives of their own.
- Success cannot be copied from one context
into another.
- Different time is change of context: Being
first is different identity from becoming
second. Accumulated experience differs.
*
*
Explanations of Success and Failure
Three Factors of Success in Upper Karelia Project
Regional
Council’s
support to
project
planning.
SITRA’s
expertise and
flexible
funding.
Connecting
Local to
Global
Local
Learning
Process
”Locality
is not isolation,
rather it is an
arena for a joint
encounter with
the challenges
of the world.”
Sufficient
support from
outside
Jukka Oksa & Jarno Turunen 2002
*
Explanations of Success and Failure
Community Net Improved Connections
• New possibilities for interaction are created.
• Locally generated interactions of rural and urban
people are initiated.
• Experience of being in periphery is turned into
proactive activity.
• Local knowledge is translated into network
contents, used by the locals.
• Local groups are helped to connect to regional,
national and international partners and knowledge
resources.
*
*
Explanations of Success and Failure
The Need to be Locally Inclusive:
The Alliance of Developers and the Everyday
Needs
In the best case the Network for Development is
supported and accepted by the communities of
everyday life. They are felt to be "on our side".
This is difficult because success creates social
distinctions and social differences.
The challenge is to keep the Development Network
and its successes inclusive, allowing new groups to
share the in the success.
*
*
Who is the Developer ?
Renewed Concept of Communities
for Development. Why?
Power in networks: Networks consist of
leading nodes and nodes that follow.
Periphery means isolation.
Sources of power in networks:
- coordination (local coordination)
- concepts: definition of objectives
- recognition of resources
(knowledge and identity resources)
- Initiative!
*
Explanations of Success and Failure
Knowledge and Identity are
Network Resources
The collective learning process can be
seen in terms of constructing and using
knowledge and identity as resources.
This is the definition of social capital as
defined by Ian Falk and Sue Kilpatrick
(2000).
Building social identity means building
new communities.
*
*
Explanations of Success and Failure
Construction of Social Capital
based on Falk & Kilpatrick 2000
Knowledge
Identity
Social interaction
*
*
Contacts
Jukka Oksa
University of Joensuu
Karelian Institute
PO Box 111, FIN-80101 Joensuu, Finland
Phone +358-(0)13-251 2454
Fax +358-(0)13-251 2472
[email protected]
Research on local information society
http://cc.joensuu.fi/~alma/infosoc/
This lecture is available at
http://cc.joensuu.fi/~alma/lue/
*