A Scoping Exercise by
The Centre for Internet & Society
Bangalore, India in collaboration with ITS Brazil
Elonnai Hickok . Sunil Abraham . Amber Sinha . Vanya Rakesh . Tanvi Mani . Scott Mason . Vipul Kharbhanda
Identifying and mapping the key stakeholders and their goals for using Big Data is essential in identifying the "nodes" of a network and how each node can contribute to the network.
Private Companies
Academia and Research Centres
Civil Society
A network should be able to account for the dynamic nature of big data and its applicability to almost any sector
Development
Emergency response
Data Advocacy and Social Change
Transparency and accountability
Urban planning
Government delivery of services and functions
Policy formation
Financial Inclusion:
Monitoring environmental indicators:
Agriculture
Health care
Participatory citizenship
Education
Smart cities
Location based advertising
Defense development and cyber security
Accurate analysis and inference from the data
Ethical use of the data
User control of the data
Effective use of the data – know how and capacity of the people using it and the regulator
Empowerment vs. Marginalization as a result of big data practices
Breach and privacy concerns
Implementation of big data driven projects
Data ownership
Liability
Completeness of data
Standardization of data
Technology cannot overcome some challenges
Political barriers
Impact on human rights and civil liberties
Big Data can be applied to almost any vector. Based on literature review and conversations potential policy windows that have a direct impact on human rights and civil liberties that a network could focus on include:
Transparency and Accountability
Privacy and Dignity
Data protection
Governance and Regulation
Development
Urban development and smart cities
Data ownership
Robert Chambers, in his book, Whose Reality Counts? Identifies four fundamental elements needed by a network in order to inculcate an environment of trust, encouragement and the overall actualization of its purpose;
Diversity: the encouragement of a multitude of narratives from diverse sources,
Dynamism: the ability of participants to retain their individual identities while maintaining a facilitative structure.
Democracy: an equitable system of decision making to enable an efficient working of the net and finally
Decentralization: the feasibility of enjoying local specifics on a global platform.
Methods of attaining these elements include; ensuring a clear broad consensus, minimizing centralization, building trust between participants, joint activities, and consultations on the goals of the network, the sources of funding and an agreed upon structure within which the network would operate.
The structural informality of a network is essential to its sustenance. Networks must therefore ensure that they embody a non-hierarchized structure.
One form of a network structure is the threads, knots and Nets model.
The threads are established through common ideas and a voluntary participation in the process of communication and conflict resolution.
The knots represent the combined activities which the participants engage in, with the common goal of realizing a singular purpose.
The net represents the entire structure of the network, which is constructed through a confluence of relationships and common activities.
The maintenance of such a structure requires awareness of weak “threads” and the capability to knot them together with new participants, thereby extending the net.
Clearly defined milestones are integral to sustaining an effective support mechanism for donors and ensuring that all relevant participants are on board.
The initial seed money a network receives can be obtained from a single source however, cross sectorial financing is necessary to build a consensus with regards to issues that may be a part of the network’s mandate (this is less fundamental for networks whose primary mandate is implementation).
A network can also be funded through the objective it seeks to achieve through the course of its activities.
Lack of tangible outcomes exposes funders to financial risks. The best way to reduce such risks is to institute an uncompromising time limit for the initiative, within which it must achieve tangible results or solutions that can be implemented. A less stringent approach would be to incorporate a system of periodic review and assessment.
A study by Newell & Swan determined that there currently exist three types of trust between participants within a network:
Companion trust: the trust that exists within the goodwill and friendship between participants
Competence trust: wherein the competence of other participants to carry out the tasks assigned to them is agreed upon.
Commitment trust: the trust which is predicated on contractual or inter-institutional agreements.
Autonomy of participants within a network is considered to be close to sacred, so as to allow them to engage with each other on an equitable footing, while still maintain their individual identities.
The lower the level of centralized control within a network, the greater the requirement of trust.
Research has shown that face to face interaction at regular intervals is better for building trust amongst participants, than email.
Need to develop a relationship vocabulary, which would be of particular use within transnational networks and afford a deeper understanding of cross cultural relationships.
Participation envisages a three levelled definition;
Participation as a contribution, where people offer a tangible input.
Participation as an organization process, where people organize themselves to influence certain pre-existing processes.
Participation as a form of empowerment, where people seek to gain power and authority from participating.
In order to evaluate and monitor participation, a network would have to attempt to incorporate a few fundamental processes, such as;
Establishing criteria of monitoring the levels of participation of the members.Creating an explicit checklist of qualifications of this participation., Building a capacity for facilitative and shared leadership., Tracing the changes that occur when the advocacy and lobbying activities of individuals are linked and using these individuals as participants who have the power to influence policy and development at various levels. , Recognizing that utilizing the combined faculties of the network would aid in the effectuation of further change is vital to sustaining an active participation in the network.
Networks should not be interpreted as being merely a resource centre.
One method of moving away from the needs based model of participation is to create a tripartite functionary; this involves A Contributions Assessment, A Weaver’s Triangle for Networks and An identification of channels of participation.
The activities of the network which don’t directly pass through the coordinator of the network can be monitored by keeping close contact with new entrants to the network and capturing the essence of the activities.
Sarason and Lorentz postulate four distinguishing characteristics required by individuals leading and coordinating networks:
Knowledge of the territory or a broad understanding of the type of members, the resources available and the needs of the members.
Ability to assess openings, making connections and innovating solutions would enable an efficient leadership that would contribute to the overall dynamism of the network.
Perceptive of strengths and building on assets of existing resources to allow the network to capitalize on its strengths.
Resource to all members of the network.
Practically, a beneficial leadership would also require an inventive approach by providing fresh and interesting solutions to immediate problems
The participation of diverse actors is reflective of the policy making processing having given due regard to on the ground realities and being sensitive towards the concerns of differently placed interest groups.
A network across the Global South should extend its ambit of membership to grass root organizations, which might not otherwise have the resources or the opportunity to be a part of a network.
The accountability of the network to civil society is dependent on the nature of the links it maintains with the public. Inclusion thus fosters a sense of legitimacy and accountability.
The inclusion of local institutions from the beginning would also increase the chances of the solutions provided by the network, being effectively implemented.
The process of evaluation of a network is most efficiently effectuated through a checklist that has been formulated within a research study for the purpose of evaluating its own network.