SlideShare a Scribd company logo

Final Conference Workshop 1: Practices - Facilitator: Guntram Geser

•Download as PPT, PDF•
•
Links-up
Links-up

Web 2.0 tools have the potential to support social inclusion, but several challenges must be addressed. Learning and skills acquisition can promote social inclusion, but require active engagement from individuals. Projects using Web 2.0 have experimented with different intervention concepts, but often face barriers like overcoming resistance to change from organizations and professionals. Tools alone do not drive inclusion; social barriers must first be addressed and people convinced of the value of online social and learning activities. Impact is difficult to demonstrate under tight funding timelines.

Related slideshows

Storyboard
StoryboardStoryboard
Storyboard
 
Community Media 2.0: The Challenge of Convergence
Community Media 2.0: The Challenge of ConvergenceCommunity Media 2.0: The Challenge of Convergence
Community Media 2.0: The Challenge of Convergence
 
Storyboard for innovation web 2.0
Storyboard for innovation web 2.0Storyboard for innovation web 2.0
Storyboard for innovation web 2.0
 
1 of 14
Links-up Final Conference Budapest, 22 September 2011 Web 2.0 for Social Inclusion: Bridging Practices and Policies Workshop 1: PRACTICES Facilitator: Guntram Geser
Focus and main question Focus: Web 2.0 and social inclusion – practices (good and bad ones) Main question: What works with whom under which conditions?
Web 2.0 and social inclusion Hypothesis: Web 2.0 (Learning 2.0) can support social inclusion Yet, very small evidence base – mainly case studies of projects – e.g. Links-up 24 case studies Projects are experiments with intervention concepts
Intervention concepts Main focus: Re-engagement in education, vocational training, LLL Learning (i.e. acquisition of competences) is understood as a strong driver of social inclusion Requires active engagement (discipline) by individuals Important basis of employability and participation in social life
Some related focus points Develop alternatives to traditional educational settings (Notschool) Promoting creative activity (Roots & Routes) Vocational orientation and job finding (MOSEP) Counselling young people in critical situation (Cyberhus) Strengthening deprived communities and minorities (Web in the Hood, Savvy Chavvy)
Web 2.0 practices – major issues Overcome resistance of organisational cultures – ingrained mindsets and working paradigms of professional communities (schools/teachers, social workers, youth offending teams,…) Requires commitment and support by management Need to show that there are also benefits for the organisation and professional staff Involve trusted third parties and intermediaries
Web 2.0 tools per se do not drive inclusion, participation and learning In the first place social barriers to participation must be addressed People - and organisations - must be convinced that social activity and learning on the Web is worth the effort Need to build trust and achieve buy-in by leading community members (e.g. migrant communities) Peer mentoring can help drive participation and outcomes
Get clear about appropriate methods and tools Avoid approach of “build it and they will come” Initial lack of e-skills always requires a “blended” approach Also promotes social relations and sharing of experiences among participants Can then be extended and enhanced by using Web 2.0 tools Usage of tools must be reflected thoroughly (simple tools vs. scaleable platforms)
How to demonstrate impact Often difficult in projects with hard to reach groups under the pressure of funding regimes Involve relevant third parties and multipliers systematically (e.g. local cultural centres and media) Document interventions and results regularly Present role models of success – help convince target communities, organisations and sponsors
Does Web 2.0 support social inclusion? PRO CON Discussion
PRO It can empower people to express themselves, have their voices heard But, avoid “intervention concepts” for Web 2.0 Example from participant from Romania (G8WAY project): young Roma people do not really feel to be socially excluded, they have a strong sense of belonging to their social community Yes, it can support, but people need “stability” of learning 2.0 environments like in traditional learning settings (though not the same) Does Web 2.0 support social inclusion?
PRO continued… Need appropriate design approaches -> participatory design! Yes, but projects need to be more ambitious and serious about what they promise to deliver Does Web 2.0 support social inclusion?
CON Depends on the “intervention concept” used Time to tell the EC this paradigm does not work People still afraid of the technologies, because they change too quickly Projects need to be more innovative Does Web 2.0 support social inclusion?
Contact Join the LINKS-UP Community @ www.links-up.eu Dr. Guntram Geser, MTM Salzburg Research, Austria [email_address]

More Related Content

Final Conference Workshop 1: Practices - Facilitator: Guntram Geser

  • 1. Links-up Final Conference Budapest, 22 September 2011 Web 2.0 for Social Inclusion: Bridging Practices and Policies Workshop 1: PRACTICES Facilitator: Guntram Geser
  • 2. Focus and main question Focus: Web 2.0 and social inclusion – practices (good and bad ones) Main question: What works with whom under which conditions?
  • 3. Web 2.0 and social inclusion Hypothesis: Web 2.0 (Learning 2.0) can support social inclusion Yet, very small evidence base – mainly case studies of projects – e.g. Links-up 24 case studies Projects are experiments with intervention concepts
  • 4. Intervention concepts Main focus: Re-engagement in education, vocational training, LLL Learning (i.e. acquisition of competences) is understood as a strong driver of social inclusion Requires active engagement (discipline) by individuals Important basis of employability and participation in social life
  • 5. Some related focus points Develop alternatives to traditional educational settings (Notschool) Promoting creative activity (Roots & Routes) Vocational orientation and job finding (MOSEP) Counselling young people in critical situation (Cyberhus) Strengthening deprived communities and minorities (Web in the Hood, Savvy Chavvy)
  • 6. Web 2.0 practices – major issues Overcome resistance of organisational cultures – ingrained mindsets and working paradigms of professional communities (schools/teachers, social workers, youth offending teams,…) Requires commitment and support by management Need to show that there are also benefits for the organisation and professional staff Involve trusted third parties and intermediaries
  • 7. Web 2.0 tools per se do not drive inclusion, participation and learning In the first place social barriers to participation must be addressed People - and organisations - must be convinced that social activity and learning on the Web is worth the effort Need to build trust and achieve buy-in by leading community members (e.g. migrant communities) Peer mentoring can help drive participation and outcomes
  • 8. Get clear about appropriate methods and tools Avoid approach of “build it and they will come” Initial lack of e-skills always requires a “blended” approach Also promotes social relations and sharing of experiences among participants Can then be extended and enhanced by using Web 2.0 tools Usage of tools must be reflected thoroughly (simple tools vs. scaleable platforms)
  • 9. How to demonstrate impact Often difficult in projects with hard to reach groups under the pressure of funding regimes Involve relevant third parties and multipliers systematically (e.g. local cultural centres and media) Document interventions and results regularly Present role models of success – help convince target communities, organisations and sponsors
  • 10. Does Web 2.0 support social inclusion? PRO CON Discussion
  • 11. PRO It can empower people to express themselves, have their voices heard But, avoid “intervention concepts” for Web 2.0 Example from participant from Romania (G8WAY project): young Roma people do not really feel to be socially excluded, they have a strong sense of belonging to their social community Yes, it can support, but people need “stability” of learning 2.0 environments like in traditional learning settings (though not the same) Does Web 2.0 support social inclusion?
  • 12. PRO continued… Need appropriate design approaches -> participatory design! Yes, but projects need to be more ambitious and serious about what they promise to deliver Does Web 2.0 support social inclusion?
  • 13. CON Depends on the “intervention concept” used Time to tell the EC this paradigm does not work People still afraid of the technologies, because they change too quickly Projects need to be more innovative Does Web 2.0 support social inclusion?
  • 14. Contact Join the LINKS-UP Community @ www.links-up.eu Dr. Guntram Geser, MTM Salzburg Research, Austria [email_address]