DRAFT
Some initial thoughts on technology and social transformation
Background:
Over the past century or so, a pattern seems to have emerged of identifying a problem (social, medical, economic, political or other), seeking a technological solution, ignoring early signs of new problems such solutions might create, proliferating inventions, being resigned to the inevitability of accepting such problems, and recursing for each new problem by seeking more technological solutions for each. An overarching question one might ask is what could be alternative approaches to innovation in a technologically sophisticated world? [1]
Overview of a research program:
Within this context, a group of researchers are collaborating on an emerging research program that aims to examine more closely the relationship between digital tools and social transformation. This is part of a longer-term effort to re-examine the new relationships between technological innovation as a whole and social transformation. Currently the program is beginning to examine four overlapping areas:
- Technology and individual and collective consciousness: the relationship between digital tools and individual and collective consciousness
- Agency in technology adoption and use: educational activities (especially for young people, their families and those in the community that interact with them) that morally and socially empower individuals to make sound choices related to digital tools
- Technology design: hardware and software design that positively affect consciousness and reinforce such educational activities
- Technology policy and regulations: related regulatory and policy frameworks that motivate companies to make those design choices
Initial conception:
An initial step in the program has been to establish an interdisciplinary, multi-institutional lab with ties to community organizations. The lab is currently conceived as a space for the exchange of thought and ideas, for collaboration – both academic and with communities and organizations – on knowledge generation, and for disseminating and applying findings. The emphasis is on action-research and applied research. Currently it consists of faculty members at BCIT, undergraduate and graduate students at UBC, UVic, SFU and BCIT, and community partners in education and public health. The disciplines range from public health to education to social sciences to engineering and computing systems. The activities of the lab include keeping current with the literature by discussing and summarizing publications (articles and book chapters), authoring joint publications, designing and carrying out studies and action-research, identifying conferences to attend/submit publications to, identifying relevant courses to take, pursuing funding and carrying out innovative design of hardware and software.
Steps being taken:
For the first area, a PhD student at UVic is looking into the effects of social media on the consciousness of young people in their early teens. The focus population is urban aboriginal families. Another student is doing a Master’s degree at UBC in the area of literacy education, and has been working with Canadian newcomer families and has done some work with ESL. The current thinking behind the thesis is to explore how literacy helps refugees become integrated and contributing members of society, and especially the role that language-learning technology and media-based communication have in the integration of newcomers in their new communities, with special emphasis on youth. For example, while digital tools can in many ways help with integration, modern tools like social media may also slow integration. Consciousness is a key factor in this project as well. Another potential Master’s level question is emerging from some preliminary community-based research with a local school (Edmonds Community School), exploring the effect of the use of digital tools on the mental health of junior youth – but mental health from more of a public health rather than clinical perspective. One of the participants in the action-research project is exploring graduate work in this or a related area. Another student is completing a philosophy degree at SFU and is helping map the foundational literature for the program’s aims.
For the second area, while there is currently no student pursuing the question of education in particular, each of the graduate students’ work is expected to give insight into the content and approach of suitable educational activities. In the meantime, the work that the Colibri Learning Foundation is undertaking to learn how to help youth and newcomers contribute to social transformation, provides a context for future research projects, alongside other community partners such as schools. While most of the work (some of which have already begun) is action-research, gradually there will be a need to examine the question of technological choice [1], and particularly the kind of education that engages individuals, communities and institutions of civil society in empowering young people. Although still in its early stages, already important questions are being uncovered that impact not only the content of education, but policies, budgets, training of teachers and of course ultimately educational philosophies that will have to evolve. Currently the lab is exploring the experience of school children in select schools in B.C. with online education, especially the impact of digital tools used during the pandemic.
For the third area, the lab is undertaking a small effort to examine the design of devices used for health and education to see whether particular ones are more suitable, and identify relevant software and hardware design principles. For example, two BCIT undergraduate students are working on ongoing applied research projects: one that is examining how sensors integrated into existing mobile devices can be used for human tracking in the context of improving health care, and another how digital tools can be more effectively used for education. The second project includes the possibility of developing new and inexpensive hardware and software designed from the outset to help students focus on what they are studying and avoiding the distracting and addictive elements of existing devices. The community-based action research in the other two areas is helping drive the design decisions of this project.
Regarding the fourth area, all the above accepts that innovation (including hardware and software design) is outside the domain of choice, even though it inevitably plays a critical role in user choice. Further, it seems those decisions are made primarily by market forces and corporate interests. In the case of digital tools (as opposed to say fuel source technology, transportation or even other entertainment tools), there seem to be virtually no regulatory frameworks or meaningful public policies [3]. At the same time, without any other financial incentives (e.g., tax structures) [4], the unbounded opportunities afforded by design practices that promote addiction and distraction (as examples) have led to design and innovation that relegate other factors such as social implications to the realm of mere curiosity at best, and irrelevance at worst. Ironically, any negative social consequences of such design practices present problems that can be potential sources of new technological innovations. Thus, problems solved by digital tools often seem to create other problems to be solved; and so far, the response has been to look for technological solutions to those new problems, as opposed to purely social, moral or even spiritual solutions. In fact, the paradigm of technological innovation being driven by problem-solving and the unbounded acquisitive spirit seems to be unchallenged. Perhaps there are other paradigms – even possibly new ones – worth considering, that would fundamentally change both the drivers of technological innovation, as well as ultimately software and hardware design associated with digital tools. In the meantime, as an initial step, the work of the lab was included in a recent submission to the Canadian Commission on Democratic Expression [5].
References
[1] A. Jacobs, “From Tech Critique to Ways of Living,” The New Atlantis. https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/from-tech-critique-to-ways-of-living (accessed Feb. 17, 2021).
[2] M. Weinberg, B. Noureddin, “Technology, values and sustainable development“, In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Canada International Humanitarian Technology Conference (IHTC2015). June 2015
[3] A. Feenberg, “The Internet as network, world, co-construction, and mode of governance,” Inf. Soc., vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 229–243, Aug. 2019
[4] S. Zuboff, “Big other: Surveillance Capitalism and the Prospects of an Information Civilization,” Journal of Information Technology, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 75–89, Mar. 2015, doi: 10.1057/jit.2015.5.
[5] R. Anderson et. al., “Harms Reduction: A Six-Step Program to Protect Democratic Expression Online,” Public Policy Forum. https://ppforum.ca/articles/harms-reduction-a-six-step-program-to-protect-democratic-expression-online/ (accessed Feb. 17, 2021).