Summary of the discussions so far
December 5, 2008 by Anne Faulkner
Talking to people both offline and online about Digital Mentors activity, I know that some are finding it hard to keep up with the pace and amount of discussion. I thought it would be useful to put together a summary of some of ideas which are emerging from digitalmentor.org and the Voicebox site. This comes with the caveat that while I’ve tried to keep it balanced, I’ve also added my own analysis into it, which not all will agree with. Please let me know if you feel I’ve misrepresented anything you’ve written.
I’ve also had some really thought-provoking discussions about a possible model which I’ve reflected here, hopefully as a stimulus to discussion.
Apologies for the length of this post – I’ve re-read every single comment on digitalmentor.org (not an easy feat!) and wanted to do it justice. If you would like to download a PDF of this post to print out and read offline, you can find one here.
Digital Mentors: Summary of posts on digitalmentor.org and voice-box.org.uk
1) What is this collaboration trying to achieve through Digital Mentors?
Focused on engaging those who feel marginalised from society, the Digital Mentors project aims to use community and social media as a tool to provide people with a voice and foster a culture of confidence-building. Traditional digital inclusion initiatives have focused on training people to have IT skills (although at their heart is, usually, the desire to create a social impact). While that has an important place, there is growing evidence to show that supporting people to become creators of digital content can lead to individuals having a wider range of interest groups, both face-to-face and online. The growth in confidence and competence gained through creating and publishing content, as opposed to merely being a consumer, often results in people engaging with other individuals, intermediaries, agencies and groups in more confident and collaborative ways across a spectrum of aspects of daily life.
Michael Grimes says, “It’s not just giving people a voice, but also how you own and take responsibility for that voice, and how technology supports that.”
There seems to be consensus that the project and the application of digital media should be led by the issues and needs of the beneficiaries themselves – it’s not a ‘one size fits all’ notion that every project will need to be using every aspect of community and social media. Michael Grimes says: “We should be starting with what people want to achieve and helping them find and use the appropriate tools”.
Although there seems to be a general consensus about the types of technologies we want to engage people in using – community websites, wikis, blogs, social networking, social reporting, community radio, films - Mike Amos-Simpson argues: “All of these technologies are temporary and arguably may be short term trends. I think instead we should be focusing much more on how we help people acquire the skills and motivation to be able to figure out technology for themselves. Arguably you can use those forementioned tools to achieve this, but I think instead we should look to break down the skill sets we think people will need to become comfortable with using any mainstream technology and to be able to constantly adapt as these update.” So how Digital Mentors facilitate this within their communities is crucial.
Clare White makes the point that: “There’s something that is slow to change and that’s the culture change that comes in an open, digital society. In a society where everyone is invited to participate, people still need to know they have the invitation.”
We want to create a culture whether people can make an informed choice about whether to participate and give them the opportunity and the support to engage in digital media.
You could summarise all this as the notion of creating social capital through the project. This might be ‘bonding’ capital between groups of people with common bonds (e.g. their own families) or ‘bridging’ capital between people from different social groups and interests. The premise is that horizontal networks of individuals and groups enhance individual and community productivity and wellbeing (see here for a useful Wikipedia definition).
Is there anything missing from this analysis?
2) Who should Digital Mentors support?
This area is probably the least explored (despite the best efforts of Mike Amos-Simpson to generate some debate!).
Communities and Local Government (CLG) have pointed towards an emphasis on geographical communities, as opposed to national communities of interest. Their guidance notes suggest a focus on the most deprived communities.
Some people have suggested that we should focus on those who are digitally excluded – the 33% of the population who are not online. However, we might want to broaden this to any person suffering social exclusion who don’t currently have a voice. The following government definition of social exclusion may be helpful: ‘Social Exclusion is a complex and multi-dimensional process. It involves the lack or denial of resources‚ rights‚ goods and services‚ and the inability to participate in the normal relationships and activities‚ available to the majority of people in a society‚ whether in economic‚ social‚ cultural or political arenas. It affects both the quality of life of individuals and the equity and cohesion of society as a whole.’
Just because you own or use a computer doesn’t mean that you can’t benefit from a Digital Mentor to guide you through the process of playing a meaningful role in the digital world. In fact, you could argue this makes it more crucial. My vote would be to focus support on those who are socially excluded more widely, rather than just those who are digitally excluded.
What are your thoughts and ideas about who we should be trying to support through Digital Mentors?
3) What organisational/infrastructure changes need to take place to effect this change?
This is my own analysis, and is possibly a bit controversial. The exciting bit of this collaboration is that there seem to be three (possibly four) communities coming together to share ideas:
- Digital inclusion community – often great community development people, though mostly tied into a notion of digital inclusion focused around training people to use computers and the internet
- Community media – again, often great community development people, often associated with broadcast media, particularly community radio
- Web 2.0 pioneers or ‘geeks’ – early adopters who are often techies wanting to create social change, but who aren’t always linked into a particular geographic community
- Community practitioners working primarily face-to-face with client groups. I wasn’t sure whether to include this group, but was persuaded by a comment from Tracy Todhunter “There are many community groups who want to have an “online” presence but simply don’t have the skills, knowledge or confidence to set about the process.” Tracy talks about her positive experiences as someone relatively new to the Web 2.0 world.
My own analysis is that these communities have been working, if not in silos, then shoulder-to-shoulder, occasionally tripping over each other, in the same space. What the digitalmentor.org site has enabled is a forum for these different communities to exchange ideas, which is incredibly exciting.
But Digital Mentors won’t work unless it represents collaboration from these communities at all levels – grassroots and strategic. The controversial comment from me is that although there seems to be a general view that this stuff is happening up and down the country, there seem to be very few examples where people are genuinely engaging all these communities and delivering a rounded offer which is supporting socially excluded people through a wide spectrum of community and social media. I was really struck by a presentation last week by Gary Copitch from MCIN – see here for a great example of the Community Reporters project so I’m not saying it isn’t happening, I just think great examples are few and far between.
Maybe I’m wrong – in which case please show me otherwise! – but many of the examples seem to be about one angle of what Digital Mentors are.
It seems pretty clear that we need a major cultural shift, both bottom-up and top-down, in order to create a new, more empowering way of doing community development.
As Clare White says: “If we’re really talking about making transformative changes then all the tools and equipment are out there for free. If this is done properly, it could spark wider and wider circles of digital enthusiasts using their ‘powers’ to share, learn and support.”
How can we create the culture needed to effectively empower communities through this programme?
4) What qualities should Digital Mentors have?
Much of the debate on digitalmentor.org seems to have centred on this area. Some key themes are that the Digital Mentor will:
- work at grassroots level with local communities
- understand community building. For example, Mark Walker comments: “Mentors need to be “supporting individuals but increasing capacity in community organisations as well”
- need to have understanding of and be comfortable with technology
- act as a buffer and sounding board for those trying to make sense of new technologies
- link in with other local, regional and national intermediaries. For example, Paul Webster says: “To really make a difference we need to be prepared to offer health-checks and signposting to local community tech support organisations, open source software, recycled PCs and event the basics of how to protect for viruses and malware etc. Don’t do this and the hard work on the ground to digitally mentor the groups will soon some undone.”
- have skills in social reporting. David Wilcox comments: “I would like to see something in there on the role of what I and others are calling social reporters: people who help promote conversations and collaborations through a mix of online and offline methods and help others do the same. They would draw on bits of citizen journalism, facilitation, community development and social media. Maybe they are community development workers in world 2.0.”
- the desire and skills to share what they’re doing with others. Paul Henderson says: “…the advantage of being able to share what’s going on isn’t often seen”
- have effective facilitation skills (Steve Dale)
There is some discussion about whether you could do it the other way round – get geeks learning community development skills, but the overall preference seems to be to start with the people who know and are trusted and respected by their local community.
The following comments sum up what a Digital Mentor should be very succinctly:
“Somebody who is sufficiently confident about the technology to allow other people not to be scared of it, who doesn’t necessarily know everything about it, but believes in it enough so they can persuade other people that they don’t need to be fearful of it. Which gets people starting to experiment with it and play with it…”. Nick Booth
“Digital mentors should complement existing initiatives to support communities. There are so many initiatives that “drop” onto communities without an understanding of the context.” Noel Hatch
“A key skill is being able to build trust with the community as well as with other groups involved (local authorities, community clubs, local media, individual mentors. Being able to allow time and different levels of participation, building interest and valuing different types of activity and using techniques that balance online & face to face interaction.” Noel again
“The key has to be coming at this from the “mentor” angle…working with a trusted intermediary, a person that you feel comfortable with who can chat off-line from within your own community is invaluable.” Paul Webster
“Digital mentoring should be open to anybody with a passion for the social change that the digital sphere can bring who is willing to share that with other people, particularly with those communities that remain voiceless.” Clare White
Are there any qualities that have been missed? Any in the list that have less relevance than others?
5) A new type of relationship
This leads onto another strong theme emerging – that of the idea of the mentors and mentees being co-creators of digital content. This challenges the traditional model of teachers passing on their knowledge and develops the idea of mutual learning.
On present evidence, the mentors are themselves likely to be new to the innovative application of community and social media.
As Michael Grimes says: “There should be an understanding that everyone involved is getting to grips with the rapidly changing social environment, and each is supported in exploring and navigating it.”
Clare White argues: “Teaching is a pretty old fashioned form of broadcast. Mentoring is more about developing participation, it’s the modern version of show and tell, but without the tell.”
The Digital Inclusion Landscaping document states: “Champions are most effective when they are embedded in local communities and have strong links to relevant community groups. This helps local community organisations to create additional champions and achieve multiplier effects. Ideally these schemes also lay the groundwork for students to become volunteers, creating a virtuous circle that sustains the programme.”
The concept of Digital Mentors flattens hierarchies and shies away from a dependency model – the idea is that the mentees can soon become mentors (paid, as well as voluntary).
Do you agree with that we should be aiming for the mentees to become mentors? If so, should we aim to measure this as an outcome of the project and if so, how?
Some key principles
Some key principles seem to have emerged which should be the basis of any sound bid:
Helen Milner summarises these as:
- A new way to have a voice
- Community-up
- Supported with resources
- Communities and tech-savvy helpers
- Not just one kind of digital mentor
- Innovating and building on what’s happening now
- Building in sustainability
Paul Webster also adds some further principles:
- Primary funding is to ensure digital mentors work with communities to give them a stronger voice
- Third sector well represented through local infrastructure
- Efficiency in training through regional general digital mentoring training or national workshops on specific technologies
- Regional and national networks are used to get maximum efficiency
- Good practice shared through online and face to face networking and story sharing
- Ensure established digital innovations are made replicable in other parts of the country
Some further thoughts summarised from digitalmentor.org:
- People focused: Mike Amos-Simpson “To me this programme is all about people – finding, enthusing, inspiring, supporting and involving people and that’s where the bulk of the budget should go.”
- Inclusive: Emma Solomon “My main concern is that it is maintained, by whoever ends up managing it, as a truly open opportunity for anyone already delivering this agenda, and capable of delivering more of it.” Clare White: “We need to find a balance between giving people adequate reward for their time and opening up our knowledge and experience to ensure that anybody with online experience who wants to share that for community benefit can find the role and take it on voluntarily.”
- “Authentic input from grassroots organisations and from people with experience in the field along with strong strategic oversight from an organisation/s with capacity.” Clare White
- Peer-to-peer support and sharing of experiences. There’s a great video clip from David Wilcox of Clay Shirkey talking about how we can encourage people to document their experiences of failure in using this technology, as well as success, through storytelling, not lists.
- National connectors, who can help amalgamate the grassroots work and make appropriate links with relevant organisations and policies.
- Include solutions for low-tech environments where communities don’t have community spaces and access to ICT kit.
- Strong user involvement in shaping the project.
Do you agree with all the principles outlined above? Are there other principles you’d like to see added?
A possible model
Based on all of the above, I wanted to get down on paper an idea I’ve bounced off a few people of how to translate some of these ideas into a possible model. Please note this doesn’t represent an ‘official’ view from UK online centres or indeed Voicebox, just an idea to get us started on a new debate.
I started off thinking that the demonstrators should be small, ‘deep’ projects – maybe 20 or 30 - where you focus resources in a deprived area through a grant to grassroots organisation to encourage individuals and communities to express their issues through a wide range of community and social media. This would be supported by a range of offline and online resources and training. However, this doesn’t allow for the inclusivity and scale that the project seems to demand. So, how can you achieve both depth and scale?
There are already around 7,000 community projects (a modest estimate) involving digital media in some shape or form, but very few true pioneers who are at the cutting edge of community and social media and using it with their client groups. The first stage of Digital Mentors could be about embedding the approach in existing projects. It seems that a crucial element is training of these existing community practitioners in 1) Web 2.0 technology (community websites, blogs, wikis, social networking tools etc) 2) facilitation skills (community/social reporting) 3) community media (community radio and other community broadcasting) – I know this is a bit of an artificial separation as the three areas blend together.
The idea:
Phase 1
1) Start with putting together a bank of trainers, with a combination of skills from the three areas above (one person is unlikely to have them all).
2) At the very start of the project, design a programme and hold a series of face-to-face training events at regional and sub-regional level, aiming to engage a wide range of community development practitioners (in the hundreds). These become your bank of Digital Mentors.
3) For a limited period, go with the ‘let a thousand flowers’ bloom philosophy, supported and encouraged by ongoing online and face-to-face resources. Encourage the Digital Mentors to be creative, challenging and consider the social change they want to achieve. My current thinking is that this would largely be unfunded but you would have a small capital/revenue pot to seed fund some projects which really needed it.
4) During this period, set up a Digital Showcase, which would provide a forum for 1) project beneficiaries, ie the communities themselves, to showcase their work and 2) for the projects to talk about the social change they want to achieve.
5) Organise a ‘people’s vote’ (a bit like the Big Lottery Fund’s People’s Millions) which would allow other practitioners and members of the public to vote for the project they think would benefit most from more resources to develop into a deeper, more impactful project.
Phase 2
6) On the basis of this vote, provide grants to a small number of projects (20-30) to develop their projects.
7) In the meantime, the existing Digital Mentors could continue to run their projects on an unfunded basis. Some of them may run aground, but others may bloom. The consortium should look for ways to leverage in other funding to support these projects and would continue to co-ordinate an online resource bank.
8 ) As part of the evaluation, CLG would have a control group (the unfunded Digital Mentors) to be able to see the impact of a funded vs unfunded model. In reality, many of the ‘unfunded’ projects may be funded through other sources, so this will need to be built into thinking about sustainability.
There are undoubtedly flaws which I haven’t considered and I haven’t attempted to capture my scribbled Venn diagrams, but the important things, I think, are to find a way for hitherto divided communities of practice to come together to enable both breadth and depth and, importantly, to create a significant social impact.
What do you think of this as a possible model? What additional benefits and positive outcomes do you foresee with this model? Which elements of the model do you dislike and why? What alternatives could you suggest?
[...] UK online centres’ Anne Faulkner has posted a huuuuuge summary of what has happened so far with digital mentors. Quite a few people who have [...]
[...] Faulkner of UK Online Centres has posted a good summary of the discussions so [...]
thats a very impressive summary
Your suggested model isn’t too far off what I’d been thinking as a possible approach. I have some thoughts about the funded/unfunded based on previous similar work I’ve been involved with - I’ll try & get some thoughts up next week based on that.
Wow, Anne - great magnum opus and good to have things consolidated in one place. On first read-thru your model makes sense, but I leave further detailed input and discussions on this to our official link to the consortium thru Emma Solomon (Digital Unite).
Hi Anne - I’ve done a diagram of my thinking for a possible model which you can view here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/32874599@N06/3089031247/sizes/o/
My thinking is that rather than seeking out projects to begin with you would offer an initial programme attractive to the types of people that would benefit from using digital technology, and then once you have these people engaged you’d provide a process through which some of these could become skilled and experienced to eventually becoming ‘Digital Mentors’ - ie. there is no assumption that Digital Mentors already exist, but is on the basis that the people that would be good in the role are out there.
The initial programme itself would have a much greater emphasis on exploring new and innovative approaches to solving local issues - less of an emphasis on digital technology/media. This would be with the aim of recruiting those people who are passionate about their issues but wh may initially find the ‘digital’ element off putting. So their engagement is with a view to exploring new approaches to tackling the issues they are interested in.
The training doesn’t need to be specific to particular issues - instead its a process that allows people to explore their local community issues and needs and how they are currently seeking to address these. As they do this social media experts are on hand to first listen and gain an understanding of those needs and then to provide very practical advice on how digital media could be used to make their efforts more effective in various ways.
The training could be a mixture of local community workshops, day events, and residential events that aim to bring together people from different communities, and people select which of those formats is most convenient to them.
All training would conclude with participants drawing up action plans which could be filmed and shared and then they are expected to put some of their new learning into action.
At this stage my thinking is that funding should only be available in order to overcome barriers people have to using digital technology - it may be that they need certain equipment or help with travel costs and so on - but mostly I think this should be discouraged (not in a we don;t want to fund you way), but in a lets look at what you can already do with things you already have access to. So to me the funding is there to remove obstacles, not to provide an incentive (which I think is unnecessary as most of these people will already be motivated to wanting to address those issues and it would be a poorer recruitment if people engage simply to chase cash).
At the first stage its likely people will need intense support - not just to help them realise their ‘projects’, but also because you will want to identify potential future mentors. So the time invested initially will be far greater than you’d expect as the project develops.
A coming back together event can be both an incentive and also a chance to evaluate. I think too this is a very good time to seek to get some of these initial people involved further and provide the opportunity for these to become Digital Mentors. It may be that its felt necessary to then provide some intense training to help them develop their mentoring skills, or it may be better to just get stuck in to stage 2 and let them learn on the job.
Stage 2 is then pretty much the same except that you now have an initial team of Digital mentors who develop their own skills, but also who will become an inspiration to others to become future recruits.
As the team becomes more and more skilled and the programme develops a clear approach to how it works you should be able to develop a training/consultancy team that could be available for running bespoke training and also increasing capacity for the programme itself it further funding is obtained.
I think that has quite a few similarities with your own model, with the exception that I would stray away from funding competitions and instead work on the basis that you expect everyone to undertake projects given that they are already motivated to do so, but at the same time having the capacity to provide funding fr the purpose of removing barriers.
[...] listen to what is said, and then develop a meaningful summary of what is emerging - as Anne Faulkner has done here in impressive [...]
To return slightly to basics - I would like to see us evolve a very clear definition of the role of the digital mentor, and perhaps more importantly a definition of the rouites by which one might be digitally included - if there are multiple ways in which one is included - then we may then need to rethink the breadth and depth of skills of mentors to accomodate a more diverse set of both technologies and activities. Is it feasible to digitally included - but only on one branch of a set of activities - lets take an example - gaming, but to choose to ignore other opportunities such as learning or collaboration. Is it sufficient to have users started down one branch, or do they need to be using the digital worlds in ways that we predefine as being of greatest value - even if they are not the ones they might themselves choose ?
We find this especially relevant to some disabled users, for whom social involvement and “fun” may well be the reasons why they want to be digitally active, rather than aspirations in education or employment - which are may not be open to them currently for a variety of reasons.
The model developed needs to offer opportunities across such a diversity of aspiration - and again that will have implications for both teh choice of and skillsets of trainers/mentors
I think the choice of which technology and tools should be determined by the participants themselves - hence model suggested above - otherwise if you assume to know what certain groups may need you inevitably still exclude some because there is no such situation that a ‘particular group of people’ will always have the same ‘particular set of needs’.
I think ‘fun’ can be achieved through purpose if delivered correctly.
I would say its correct to ‘evolve’ the role of Digital Mentor and that’s why I suggest you have several stages during which people can evolve into the role - that’s quite different from stating what you believe it to be at the outset.
In terms of the question about digital inclusion - I would say yes it is possible to become ‘digitally included’ even if you choose to exclude or not use certain digital skill sets - however its not about gaming, learning or collaboration - those are activities you can choose to do once you are comfortable with technology - the inclusion comes from achieving the skills, confidence and motivation to use technology.
Hi Mike
If I understand your model correctly, are you proposing that all the funding is directed at the development of the mentors, which in later iterations becomes almost self-sufficient in a ‘watch one, do one, teach one’ kind of way?
Also, do you think that community groups should have a project idea in mind first (which could be developed using newfound skills in digital media) or can it be the other way around, i.e. groups can learn new skills and then see how they can be used in a productive way that takes their organisation to the next level?
Are there situations where you see that the funding of projects is advantageous for this programme (e.g. to kick start something that is so innovative, even the consortium hasn’t thought of it yet! )
Hi Ben - not all the funding but certainly the bulk of it (it makes sense to allow for funding for other innovation that maybe isn’t planned for), but otherwise yes thats the essence of the model.
I don’t think they need to have an exact project idea - but they do need to be already concerned or actively working to address an issue - so most likely many participants would be from Tenants Associations, community groups etc. and would attend out of a general interest for improving their local area, although ou could have a similar take on providing courses for those with more personal interests ie. wanting to improve employability, parenting & so on - the programme can be flexible enough to help them identify what action/projects they wish to take & which technology they wish to use. I’d say its right that in some cases that action may actually be inspired by the technology they’re attracted to but generally you’d approach it that the issue is the driving factor (but aware that for some it will come the other way).
For the funding thing yes and probably that relates to my first paragraph - it would definitely be useful to have the facility for programme staff to be able to provide funding where they think it would make a significant contribution to the development of the programme and to be able to interpret that fairly flexibly. My caution with the use of funding is that it can end up becoming too much of an incentive in itself (and also being an administrative nightmare), so I think its best as an enabler albeit good to have the option for what you suggest.
Great work on developing the model Mike.
I’m interested to know what people think about a social enterprise model (where more of the money goes into capacity building/training) vs more grassroots funding.
While I support a social enterprise model in principle, I know that funding for digital inclusion projects is more scarce than ever and this came out very strongly at NIACE’s Digital Inclusion Conference recently, with some organisations like WEA saying their work was looking increasingly unsustainable. Plus I’d anticipate that the current economic situation will make a social enterprise model particularly hard to develop. So while I don’t think we should be wholly subsidising projects I think I’d like to see more funding going to seed fund projects than Mike’s model implies.
Paul H - is there anything you can share from Ruralnet’s experience of running net:gain?
Two quick points - absolutely the choice of technology is left to users - but that has implications for the training and support of mentors if the diversity of solutions needs to be incorporated - that may also suggest the need for some capital investment in projects to allow the technology base to be enhanced
Second - whilst we need to really base this on grassroots projects - I would be concerned if no central service was allowed for, especially for low incidence issues - many local projects see very few disabled people - I dont want to see users ghettoised into “disability projects” but I do want to ensure that where spcialist advice over and above what can be delivered generically is required that teh safety net is funded and available
re. seed funding - you can do both by integrating seed funding into the training model. The organisation I used to work for ran all of its programmes on that basis. Originally it started out of a research project - a funder wanted to determine if community projects were more sustainable if rather than just providing grant funding they first provided a programme of training for beneficiaries. Unsurprisingly the findings were that they were.
This led to more developed programmes all using a model of providing practical training and upon completion participants could apply for funding to realise their projects - the level of funding varied between programmes from £500, to £3,000 and £5,000
When I developed the youth programme there I did so on the same basis. What I discovered though was that in the vast majority of cases the funding applications that were made were not out of need, but simply because they could and felt they should - so very often applications were made to purchase equipment that could actually have been obtained/used without cost. As I began training in the adult programmes I saw the same - there was also an issue that the programmes would measure themselves by how many funding awards they had made and so there was ongoing drive or need to have to find suitable projects to fund.
I didn’t think this made much sense - the success of the training should have been whether or not people took effective action, with or without funding, and arguably had there been less emphasis on having to make those awards that funding could have been used to provide more training.
In the final two years of the youth programme I removed the funding element because it wasn’t really a critical factor in whether groups actually undertook projects - the quality of the training and how well motivated participants were from it was.
For the Digital Mentor programme I think you need a balance of having that funding available where financial considerations are a genuine barrier - but if its not done carefully you risk presenting a model that says actually the only way you can become digitally included is if you have access to funding that allows you to buy X equipment & so on. I would instead be trying to place an emphasis on exploring what you can do already with a minimum of outlay - what resources are already available to you? (that you may not be aware of but given the massive amount of organisations apparently already supporting such work by the interest on here may well already be available in your area).
I wouldn’t have described my suggested model as a social enterprise model - I’d say instead its a heavy investment in people - finding and investing in people who will become inspirational to others. This is in my opinion what really has the biggest and most lasting impact on people - seeing how others have overcome barriers, developed their own skills and put them to use in their real lives. This can of course lead to elements of social enterprise as those same people become valuable assets, but the real driver would be having them as inspiration and if my own experience is anything to go by you should be able to form a very dedicated and loyal team of people that will develop the programme in ways you can never envisage at the start.
It would be good to get other suggested models too based on others experiences and then maybe you can see how different elements of those can be drawn together - it might also be useful to try and draw up a user scenario demonstrating the journey that somebody would have going through the programme and who they would interact with throughout it?
Specifically re: smallscale project funding versus investment in training & support for Digital Mentors:
I agree with Mike that putting in funding applications just because you can should not be a measure of impact or success.
I also think that we should not be creating a culture whereby projects/organisations/centres say “We stopped doing that because the money dried up or nobody is paying us to do that anymore”.
Applicants should apply for funding to enable them to do developmental work on new services with the intention of building these into their mainstream activities if they prove to be successful and effective.
Problems arise when an organisation does not have a sustainable business model that covers core costs and thus end up chasing short-term funding opportunities (often without the necessary skills and understanding to win competitive bids).
However if a Digital Mentor project has made a good start and identifies the need for some funding to extend, enhance or reinforce existing activites, then they should be supported, either with direct funding from the overall project or support in putting together a credible application to a funding agency.
Interesting debates re the models. I would say, as mentioned earlier, that there are a number of community based organisations already doing this kind of work - even if they do not call it that! Community media projects (using a variety of platforms for distribution, not just community radio) exist by their very nature to involve and train people within their communities in using digital tools to create content telling their own stories in their own ways. As such, they and similar organisations may well be the best placed to identify members of their community digitally and socially excluded? The ultimate beneficiaries (the mentees rather than the mentors) are more likely to come into the scheme if they are approached by people they know and trust.
So - a dual approach. Monies going to groups on the ground already able and willing to identify and support the mentors, a coordinated training programme by the central coordinating group to ensure consistency in the training offer both for mentors and mentees, and proper and full national evaluation of the effectiveness of these (and the performance of the coordinating group).
That way, most of the money is going to communities on the ground, minimising steering group costs…
Jaqui, Community Media Association
I think the model is appropriate and the idea that the people are encouraged to recognise and take up the opportunities availalble to them is key. A very clear and focussed definition is required but should be flexible to meet the needs of individuals in geographic communities as well as communities of interest to encourage the greatest participation.
If the works already being done there’s no need to replicate it - I’d expect that this programme would be aiming to fill a gap albeit by enhancing and supporting the good work that already exists. It might be useful to give examples of existing work and how they could relate in to proposed models?
I agree with minimising waste in administration, but if you do feed the funding through to communities on the ground what is that money to be spent on? What do you envisage the kind of funding that groups/individuals would be needing to overcome their current barriers to engaging?
re. the Mentors & the Mentees my thinking on this is that one becomes the other (where they wish). I see the role of ‘professionals/practitioners’ as quite distinct - they’re undoubtedly crucial, but I don’t think they make the most effective of mentors in this context.
Lots of models have been tried already.. and including by many of us on this blog. I’m thinking wired up communities, circuit riders, digilabs and about 12 others.
We have our own Everybody Online model, but even there our “project officers” differ in their focus, according to their skills and personality. Some work more strategically, others at a more personal level. The former got more stakeholder buy in and activity, the latter got indviduals into work. the validity depends on what you want to achieve.. to an extent its all valid.
We tried to capture some of the work into the “EOL hub”, we figured out a training process and looked for train the trainer gains…(our fab trainer is still in post).
I keep coming back to “Demonstrating what?” What are the essentials we need to show. I don’t think then it is about one model, its about several.
regional networks, volunteers, scale, sustainability, activist energy, organisational networking capacity building, rural agendas, accessibility, national alliances, mass marketing and grass roots follow up, building on, innovating plugging gaps.
I think we need to map at various levels- national, regional local… alot through stakeholder discusions as to what works and why at the different levels. In some cases digging deep as to why things work. Then we need to build several models to build on and extend.
if you do X you get this impact, this return on investment, this is how you can scale, this is how its sustainable, this is how it addresses issue Y or reaches community z. And if you do A you get…. and if you do B you get….
I feel I keep typing posts that assume knowledge and miss out a pile of relevant information to keep it short and readable.
(also some of my posts have gone missing- we are looking for them now!!).
Our bid need efficiency and effectiveness and clarity whilst juggling a raft of issues and agendas, opportunities and restrictions.
And fundamentally e can think of this as change management- at all those levels.
What are we trying to change and why? We can describe the imperatives, thats not so hard, we can audit the skills gap and offer training programmes, that requires some thinking through but its not so difficult. What motivates people to change? thats the crucial often missed question, why will people engage?- I don’t just mean mentees, or mentors or trainers or regional networks or national orgs or funding government departments. I mean them all- what drives them? Why would they want to get involved?
Thats why we need to be tactical and strategic and thats a particular kind of conversation- and I don’t think one I can have very well through a key board!
It is difficult to try and explain using this format isn’t it - either ends up as too long a post or too little detail!
I was meaning more along the lines of how can existing models link in to the digital mentor programme? Which elements should be entwined, or complement etc. and what are they? (presumably the programmes form those that have signed up to collaborate?).
In terms of what drives people I think you can take this from the target groups which I’ve assumed to be those who are socially excluded/disadvantaged by nature of their geographic area of residence and obviously particularly those living in those areas who are digitally excluded (by circumstances, skills or choice). Within those communities there are plenty of people who are already motivated to want to improve their circumstances so I was basing my model on using that existing motivation and developing it to demonstrate to those people how digital media can enhance and simplify their existing efforts.
I agree its not about one model - but that said I think there should be one very clear focus in the approach and therefore there should be a dominant model around which others can provide added value. If not theres a risk that people just won’t get what the programmes about.
Back to basics. Surely this is about the government spending money in the most effective way possible to make a real difference for real people in disadvantaged communities, in an attempt to reduce the digital divide? If it is not, then I do not know what we are all talking about. As it happens, I do not agree that the digital mentors and ultimate beneficiaries will be one and the same.
I am not interested in theoretical models of how communities might or might not behave. Our members engage with thousands of people in “hard to reach” (they are not hard to reach, just the people trying to reach them have no idea how to engage) communities, every day. As do many others potentially involved in this consortium.
Media (I wanna be a DJ, podcasting for elderly people) is a powerful tool for bring people together. This scheme surely is NOT about the mentors, but the end users?
Domino effects…
Jaqui
lol I’ve just written a post suggesting how people could illustrate potential models visually - guess that won’t appeal to you then Jacqui! I will say that if you have all the answers then maybe theres no need for the conversation?
I too have ran programmes working with thousands of people in deprived communities throughout the UK - I wouldn’t however claim to have all the answers and I certainly wouldn’t ever consider developing a programme without having considered theoretical models to how the programme could most effectively work. I do have ideas for a model that I think could work well and have presented it here. I don’t think this is the only or even the best model, but hopefully if others contribute their ideas it can help towards building one that is.
It doesn’t seem as though you looked at it, otherwise you would have understood why I assume Digital Mentors and Beneficiaries to be one and the same. My thinking is that if you opt instead to have practitioners as the Digital mentors you are in fact adding to the costs you will need to outlay on delivery fees and therefore there will be less of the funding made available to those at the grass roots.
I don’t where you got ‘hard to reach’ from - has anybody claimed they are?!
Maybe if you could provide some practical ideas based on the experience you have that could make for a more constructive discussion and explain how that ‘domino effect’ could actually work?
[...] in the Summary of Discussions post Anne Faulkner has suggested a model which I’ve copied below. I’ve added a link to a diagram of my own [...]
Thanks, Anne for your summary – really helpful in bringing together all the great ideas. Apologies if I am repeating comments that have already been made as there are a lot of creative synergies between all of us.
Everybody seems to be agreeing that one clear aim should be to provide a platform for those parts of society and the community, who are currently not or little represented amongst web 2 and media end users. This certainly resonates with our view at CSV.
1. I agree with the comment that there are still a lot of people who need to know that the invitation to participate in the digital world exists.
This is where I think there is a role for some broader communications work across different platforms to maximise our reach with this message and to increase the level of interest and engagement. It’s important that we let people know what is possible in the digital world and how digital technologies can help them as individuals as well as their community.
2. I agree with Anne that support should be for people who are socially excluded, which will often encompass those who are digitally excluded.
3. In terms of the coming together of community development, media and geeks, I think there is possibly more happening than we are aware of. What is lacking is the ability to find this on the web. Maybe one of things that we can look at is how we can make it easier to sign post to this content.
4. If our starting point is empowering individuals and local communities and understanding what they want to achieve, there is almost a need for community development people to work alongside the geeks. However, I’m not sure how feasible that is, but maybe something for further discussion.
The aim should be to encourage social participation and to offer all necessary tools (not just practical media tools- again this would be a combination of Anne’s three training strands) in order to actively involve the “digitally excluded“. This requires socio-cultural knowledge as well as familiarity with the new media and government.
The project should be based on the aims of lifelong learning. Participants (mentors and mentees) should be viewed as active partners, who influence the content of the proposals and are able to model it after their own needs.
Mentors (or should we call them multipliers?) will be able to explain and deal with all sorts of queries, even if they are seemingly simple. This will reduce the inhibition threshold of communities who are reluctant to get involved.
We should keep the barriers to a minimum in order to make this project as accessible as possible. Experience has taught us that once the rough guidelines are established, we have never had to look for creativity or imagination.
One of the issues that had troubled me is how we can make the project accessible to the widest number of people as possible without compromising the quality or creativity. So, I like the idea proposed by Anne to invert the model and initially work with a larger group of people (these could be either from within organisation or individuals) in order to select best practice and identify scalable models.
Two things stand out from the above post:
1. the lack of sustainability and autonomy - there’s one mention of community tech support organisations and open source, but that seems to be it and it seems more than counterbalanced by “adequate reward” and “choice of technology is left to users”.
2. suggesting People’s Millions as a model to imitate. In my experience (in West of England subregion), that means that the project in the largest settlement wins each face-off, because they can get their telephone vote out most effectively in the short time available and it’s not really anything to do with the project. Great advertising, but poor community support. I feel that some sort of peer-scoring system would work better.
Aplogies if other people have commented on this and I just haven’t found the posts, but as somebody who works now in access and training in a regional screen agency and previously in community media work, I want to open up the definition of community media. Both the department tender docs and the definition here on this page assert that community media is “mainly radio” but this really isn’t the case. There are many well established community film, video, website, social advertising and multi media projects in the UK, many of whom have exisiting links with both deprived communities and with mainstream broadcasters in TV, web and radio. I think it is important that the potential of this sector is properly recognised in terms of what it could offer to the digital mentors project. Many of them are involved in apprenticeship development, the 14-19 diplomas, links with local colleges and media courses and would be a a fantastic place to start. Infact, they and their staff already are digital mentors….
[...] my thoughts together in light of the new details arising from the ITT document. In responding to Anne’s post I broadly agree with the threads that seem to be coming together under the questions posed, with [...]
Hi all
Community media includes, as rightly identified, far more than community radio.
The membership of the Community Media Association includes:
- full time licensed community radio stations operating 24/7 on the airwaves
- community radio stations which run short term RSLs but produce content all year round
- community television operators
all of these also stream on the net as a further means of distribution of the content
- community media organisations solely using the net as the means of distribution
- community film makers
- community newsletter producers
- community reporters
The real definition of community media is not about the means of distribution but about the way the media is made and by whom.
All community media organisations work to train people in disadvantaged communities in the use of media, both “traditional” and all forms of digital media including social networking tools, to enable them to take control over the media, for the benefit of the individuals and for the communities they live in.
Just community radio is the best known…
Happy New Year,
Jaqui, Director, Community Media Association
I’ve only come across a couple of projects using community radio didn’t realise it was such a big thing!
I’d been assuming that digital media meant things like websites, blogs, twitter, social networks, digital photos & film, cd-roms & dvd, ebooks & digital publishing, maybe even computer games, mobile phone applications - pretty much anything thats “published” for a mass audience electronically. Is that in line with most peoples thoughts or is media being regarded as “mass media”?
Further clarification - the community media sector uses most of these tools - we at the CMA are developing and testing an open source platform for community content for mobiles, the distinctions between different communications and distribution platforms are becoming less important as convergence becomes more of a reality. From our point of view, we are not talking about “mass media”, rather media made by and targetted towards individual communities, most of whom have limited or no access to many or any of the platforms we might be discussing - due to cost, availability etc, also due to mistrust of “mass media”, whether mainstream radio and TV newspapers etc.
Hope that helps
Jaqui
thanks Jacqui - the trust factor is an interesting consideration as a barrier. It would be interesting if those currently working with some of the target groups could put something together to look at the different barriers that do face different communities - for which the biggest obstacles are access (& why), skills (& confidence), awareness (& interest), trust etc. etc.
I’m guessing for example those in urban areas will face less issues of access than those in rural & semi-rural communities, and those living in areas with large immigrant communities may have greater issues of common language/cultural considerations, and maybe there are things related to things like age & family size etc. ? Maybe this also has considerations for how different kinds of communities will be attracted to/put off by particular types of media too?
The one point I would make is that permeating across all of those settings, issues of age, family, culture etc are issues of individual need - either as a disability or other limiting condition - one of the things we want to ensure is that all digital mentors can accomodate the needs of all users ( or have a route for support) regardless of the channel the mentoring is using
I don’t disagree that its important to recognise that individuals face individual issues & challenges - that doesn’t mean theres no value in recognising that communities of people also face common issues & barriers. Whether its considered that digital mentors should seek to be able to potentially address all of the issues that all of the people may face, or whether they begin their work with particular communities to address the most common needs based on what organisations already working with them or they themselves have identified is maybe a useful discussion to have too?
Absolutely - I think what I was trying to say is that as disability permeates through alls ections of society it is important that needs are met through local mentors - who recognise the wider community issues such as connections, local inititaives etc - What I hope to see is that any local mentor has the resources and degree of skill to accomodate many needs and has a route to extend support where needs are more complex
There was a strong element in the expression of interest and CLG’s specification of the need for outreach to deprived communities. Do we have a strong proposal of how exactly the bid will tackle this? There has been discussion of accessibility in terms of language etc, but little on the necessity of outreach to, for example BME groups.
In our project Womenspeak, which hinged on including some of the so-called hardest to reach (in this case Bangladeshi mothers and Irish Travellers in Luton), outreach was critical to success.
We would like to see a bit more emphasis on deprived communities in section 2, and outreach to be included as a way to target them.
I would agree with Lucy entirely..