http://funredes.org/mistica

MISTICA: More on World Bank Gateway...

From: Daniel Pimienta ([email protected])
Date: Mon Oct 23 2000 - 17:39:21 AST

Sorry for crossposting...

>Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 18:29:47 +0200
>To: [email protected]
>From: "Michel J. Menou" <[email protected]>
>Subject: Fwd: [GKD] Re: GDG Content Issues
>
>>Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 16:12:43 +0200
>>To: [email protected]
>>From: Michel Menou <[email protected]>
>>Subject: [GKD] Re: GDG Content Issues
>>
>>I have been asked to write a "framing" message on GDG content, and to
>>also introduce myself. I am a professor of information policy at the
>>Department of Information Science, City University, London (U.K.) and
>>a consultant in knowledge and information management. Since 1966, I
>>have been working with international agencies in about 80 countries
>>on information policies, national and international Scientific and
>>Technical information systems and education for information work.
>>
>>This new electronic discussion is very interesting. It raises
>>expectations and frustrations, enthusiasm and doubts. Let me stress
>>that I don't question the individual goodwill of the sponsors and
>>take their point that they are listening and intend to take into
>>account the advice here expressed. Whether "the system" will let them
>>do so to a significant extent remains to be seen.
>>
>>As I considered the issue of "content," I was struck by the fact that
>>the discussion began with an examination of knowledge needs. With all
>>due respect, I would suggest that the World Bank GDG team explains
>>how it has used the outcomes of the previous electronic conferences
>>especially this GKD List and some of its own "Think tank"
>>conferences), held at the global or regional level, the many F2F
>>conferences that have explored "information and knowledge needs" of
>>the "developing countries" from one angle or the other (e.g., UNISIST
>>1 and 2, IFSTD 1 and 2, NATIS, Global Knowledge 1 and 2, etc.) in the
>>past 30 years or more, and a quite abundant literature. The same
>>question applies to this topic on content, and those upcoming on
>>governance and funding, and impact evaluation. I wonder if we are not
>>witnessing in this "new information age" the rise of "CMPRW" (Computer
>>Mediated Permanent Reinvention of the Wheel). I would therefore like
>>to propose a ban on any additional electronic or face-to-face
>>conferences aiming to discuss these issues in such general terms
>>until the outcome of the above mentioned efforts has been
>>consolidated and made available to all those concerned (however one may
>>accept in the interim that the topic be considered in conjunction with
>>specific problems and actual field work).
>>
>>BACKGROUND CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS
>>
>>Now, turning to the GDG and issues of content. Before going into
>>specifics about content, I would like to present some overall views.
>>Without intending any offense, I must confess that I am on the
>>impression that the GDG, at this stage, can be regarded as the result
>>of misconceptions and ill design trying to implement good intentions.
>>A range of experience leads me to this conclusion.
>>
>>First, many participants in this GDG discussion have contributed
>>unpaid "consulting" services to World Bank and other multilateral or
>>national organisations, for quite a number of years now, in hopes
>>that it will lead to worthwhile ICT and development projects. None of
>>those needs assessments and recommendations came up, as far as one
>>can see, with a suggestion for a "development super site."
>>
>>Second, as I was rechecking the prototype at 8 am GMT+2 before
>>writing this note, the connection was cut, as is usual in my French
>>village, though I have an ISDN line. I thought of the exciting time,
>>and phone bill, an NGO based in, say, Dosso, Niger (a place I love),
>>will have in order to access just one document from the GDG. The same
>>is true for such "revolutionary breakthroughs" which make effective
>>use of the latest multimedia capabilities of the Internet, as can be
>>seen, for instance, in Fathom (http://www.fathom.com) which sells
>>knowledge through streamed videos of distinguished specialists from
>>the most industrialized countries.
>>
>>Third, access is not the only problem. The entire approach, of having
>>"experts" screen and select information is problematic. For example,
>>if I am not mistaken, the type of information GDG plans to offer lies
>>in the so-called "best practices" which will be selected by
>>"experts." This methodology is counter-productive in many ways. Best
>>practice here today might well be inappropriate there and mispractice
>>tomorrow everywhere. It fails to empower people, by removing their
>>control over the information. Although the prototype notes that
>>sources will eventually be "ranked" by users, nonetheless, the basic
>>materials available will only be those selected by "experts." Also,
>>it appears that the GDG will most benefit the "experts" rather than
>>the ordinary people struggling with realities in the field. Finally,
>>it is highly questionable whether "experts," even local experts, can
>>identify all local needs accurately. I'll give an example.
>>
>>Many years ago a donor had designed a project to build a network of
>>public libraries in small towns of a Sahelian country. The
>>communities were to provide the building and staff, the donor was
>>providing the reading materials and technical support. The donor
>>created a core collection, based on "experts' advice". Because the
>>communities had contributed to the library, they were invited to
>>review the core collection and make suggestions. Much to the surprise
>>of the donors and experts, those communities actually completely
>>rebuilt the core collection, selecting materials which had been
>>completely overlooked and proved far more appropriate to local needs.
>>
>>Based on these considerations, I would like to present some critical
>>assumptions:
>>
>>a) People look for solutions to their problems, not for "information"
>>b) Everyone's problems are a combination of issues and the context in
>>which the person finds him/herself. They are not a series of
>>specialized and self-contained questions
>>c) The value of information lies in trust, and trust itself lies in
>>direct acquaintance, actual application, replicability and cultural
>>acceptability
>>d) All other conditions being equal, irrespective of
>>the quality of information available, it is the "quality" of people
>>which makes the difference. Unprepared, unfit, unwilling people
>>cannot make effective use of the best information.
>>e) If one means to help "the poor" let's work with them rather than
>>with those who take advantage of their existence.
>>
>>GDG CONTENT
>>
>>This electronic discussion has offered many valid suggestions, as
>>witnessed in particular in the summaries of weeks 2-8 October and
>>9-15 October. Not to mention those offered earlier in other fora.
>>I'd like to highlight some key points and possibly add a few.
>>
>>On Making the GDG Knowledge and Information Accessible:
>>
>>a) The network of electronic resources assembled under GDG should be
>>accessible through a variety of channels (digital and analog) and not
>>exclusively Web based; these channels should include human
>>intermediaries and local radio.
>>b) The access and dissemination nodes, e.g., organizations of the
>>civil society, should be guaranteed effective connectivity at an
>>affordable price, with the appropriate range of bandwidth (see for
>>instance the Papallacta Manifesto http://www.tele-centros.org )
>>c) A number of situations do require high bandwidth for effective
>>knowledge sharing or application; GDG should support a network of
>>suitable access points, as suggested by proponents of the Global
>>Service Trust Fund (GSTF):
>><http://www.friends-partners.org/GLOSAS/Tampere_Conference/>GSTF/GSTF_Reas
>>oning.html>
>>d) the World Bank and other international development organizations
>>should devote appropriate resources, both investment and policy
>>advice, to ensure fulfillment of the above requirements.
>>
>>On Developing and Providing Content:
>>
>>a) The GDG should focus primarily on funding the maintenance and
>>improvement and accessibility of existing relevant resources, as
>>identified and rated by the users. Secondarily, GDG should support
>>development of new resources only when required; the latter should be
>>based in appropriate institutions and networks led by institutions
>>from the developing countries.
>>b) The central facilities in the GDG should consist primarily of
>>search engine(s) and directory (ies) to ease access to existing
>>resources. They should include informative abstracts describing the
>>content, usability and public of the resources.
>>c) The guides (sic) and topic advisors should act in the same way as
>>reference librarians or gatekeepers (as coined by Thomas J. Allen in
>>the mid 60's; a knowledgeable and inspiring facilitator) to help
>>users find the sources best suited to their needs. These persons
>>should be selected primarily from experienced professionals among
>>local, especially grass root organizations working in the developing
>>world. One role of the GDG should be to facilitate the building of
>>interactive networks among these professionals.
>>d) The professional networks mentioned in item (c) should build
>>FAQ-like resources, based on the feedback received from the users.
>>GDG should provide funding for translating and adapting these
>>resources for the needs of the various linguistic and cultural groups.
>>e) Indigenous knowledge and lessons learned at the grass-root level
>>from the implementation of development programs should get the
>>highest priority in the strengthening of existing resources or
>>building of new resources of all types. Support should be available
>>to that end and special attention should be paid to the fair
>>representation of women and minorities perspectives.
>>f) The GDG program should include support for training of local
>>partners in building appropriate resources, disseminating their
>>content and empowering the users, so that they can ultimately build
>>their own information and knowledge resources.
>>g) Mechanisms should be put in place to ensure that a free and
>>unbiased exchange of knowledge can take place within the broad GDG
>>system. This encompasses personal safety of the contributors,
>>protection of their moral rights and limitation of excessive
>>copyrights.
>>
>>Although this anticipates next week's agenda I cannot miss a note on
>>Governance and Evaluation:
>>
>>a) If GDG is meant to be participatory, it should be set up and
>>managed as a consortium where all participants have their appropriate
>>share of responsibilities and decision making power
>>b) Monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment should be built into
>>the GDG from its inception and conducted as a collective learning
>>process along lines such as those suggested in the Global Knowledge
>>Partnership Learning and Evaluation Action Program
>>(http://www.bellanet.org/gkleap/).
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>Michel Menou

Este archivo fue generado por hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 28 2001 - 01:01:27 AST