3 Takeaways from Civic Tech Reads
We’ve been reading a handful of interesting civic technology articles recently to understand where we’re at, what we’d need in the future and how we’d get there. Here’s a short summary.
In the midst of our running competition for the best civic tech initiatives implemented in non-OECD countries (here: 👉🏼https://civictech4democracy.eu/), we’ve noticed a number of phenomena worth pointing out… and some appropriate responses worth sharing with you. Today’s post will focus on issues of impact, value systems and responsibility.
- How to make an impact? A burning issue
In its well appreciated Dark Matter Labs’ blog, Indy Johar paints an accurate picture of the social innovation ecosystem today: “the work to date has largely been limited to relatively small scale interventions” writes the author, adding that the whole sector “has become stuck in the hope that ‘a theory of scale and impact’ borrowed from the VC [venture capital] world and the Silicon Valley start-up landscape would be its structured salvation to societal impact.”
So, what exactly are we talking about when we talk about impact and should the actors benefitting from the implementation of the social changes be?
In the Theory U elaborated by Otto Scharmer at the MIT in its research “Leading from the Future as it Emerges”, co-inspiration and co-creation represent two crucial steps in achieving positive change in any community. Impact, here, then means that the status quo that perpetuates unequal systems is overcome.
When it comes to the actors themselves, Scharmer and Johar come together around an interesting notion of co-creation of value. In their view, contemporary society’s picture isn’t limited to a “Holy Trinity” made of the People, the Institutional and the Private sectors. Boundaries are much more fluid and being part of one category doesn’t exclude anyone from belonging to another one. The resolution is higher and does better justice to the complexity of the image. Considering this multi-actor world and the ever-growing access to knowledge Indy Johar states that
“the real challenge today is distributed governance”.
If we’re dealing with people, it essentially means that we’re dealing with relationships across all sectors. Hence the need to open a dialogue, a self-reflective conversation with as many stakeholders as possible.
As he raises the crucial question of our intentionality in designing for the future, Indy Johar believes we are in need of “massive systemic missions”, instead of trying to fix a market system that is running out of steam. What if instead of tweaking here and there what's already there, we’d try and “reach for the stars”?
2. The inclusivity question: is civic tech as equal as it thinks it is?
In her highly engaged piece, Sabrina Hersi Issa, a Somali-American human rights technologist and venture capitalist, addresses the question of our value system.
Bringing up the example of #MeToo, and pointing at terminologies like “civic tech” for being used as a catch-all term that still needs to define its principles, she argues that
“It is productive to create space to ask why it took this for truths to come to light, to interrogate enabling patterns of dysfunction, to interrogate the enablers themselves, to create and articulate the values and principles civic tech stands for now.”
For Sabrina Hersi Issa, as long as the complicity culture and the institutionalised culture of harassment and fear will not be openly addressed, social justice emanating from the people will not thrive. Values need to be defined, for the field of civic tech, just like for any other sector.
Conscious that the patterns are deeply engrained, the author knows that this will not happen overnight and constitutes a real process that needs investment:
“Leaders in civic tech should take signals from brave leaders and share a narrative that reflects humanity-centered process to culture change rather than band-aid approaches to single bad actors.”
Further, she adds that civic tech organisations and enablers who are openly recognised as “committed to a continual process of culture change” should help their colleagues who have been directly impacted by the lack of principles in a toxic environment.
Again, the question of redistributing governance arises, here as a “check and balance” tool that would reward integrity and sanction misconduct. “If civic tech is committed to meeting this reckoning and truly serving the needs of the communities it purports to serve, the face of leadership within civic tech must change”, writes Sabrina Hersi Issa. Thus, she highlights again the importance of self-reflection in striving for positive impact.
3. Responsibility of the technologists
Doteveryone has not been around for very long, but the London-based think tank has produced some quality reports about the digital society, always looking for new ways to make it more accessible. Their recent report “People, Power and Technology” explores the people’s understanding of technologies in the UK and shows us where are the gaps that need to be bridged.
As they researched and prototyped ideas to do that, they came up with the concept of “responsible technologies”. Another buzzword you might think. Well, maybe, but one that makes sense and seems to bring yet another solution to the issues previously outlined.
It argues that in the quest for positive impact, there’s one element that’s rarely addressed: “the potential unintended consequences.” Therefore,
“Responsible Technology considers the social impact it creates and seeks to understand and minimise its potential unintended consequences.”
Again, this cannot happen overnight. Doteveryone describes responsibility as a practice and advises the “3 C’s” as key areas to consider when designing for social change:
Context, Contribution, Continuity.
Defining their approach as “a holistic experience of technology”, Doteveryone reminds us that responsibility isn’t only about what you want to achieve, but also what you’re supporting and therefore, what you should avoid, especially when it concerns humanity.
These three readings consistently show that successfully building with and for the people starts with self-reflection, collaboration and responsibility.
There’s plenty of brilliant insights out there and we’d love to read and learn about them. If you have come across one that caught your attention, or if you want to contribute your own opinion, let us know!
If you liked this post, give us a 👏🏻 It encourages us to keep sharing our thoughts here and contribute the existing civic tech community.
CivicTech4Democracy is a competition for all initiatives that have successfully used digital tools to advance democracy in non-OECD countries. Want to participate and get a chance to pitch your existing initiative in front of international donors in Brussels? Apply here.
