Abstract for Political Forms and Movements in the Digital Era - final feedback gathering

This is the result of @Federico Monaco @Ezio_Manzini and myself meeting last week. Feel free to edit or comment. For reference, see this thread. 

Here you find the call for papers; the track we have chosen is: Mobilizations in the era of “doing together” and the commons

What the proposal should look like:

"The proposal, written in English or in French, will mention the research question, the used methodology and theoretical frame. It will highlight the scientific interest of the submitted article in regard with the existing literature and the call for paper. It can be accompanied by a short bibliography. We wish to draw the attention of the authors to the rubric « updating the classics », which aims to revisit classic authors and theories in social sciences through the prism of the Internet. "

Our work schedule:

  • until Feb 15th any changes and adds (maybe also Alberto, @Yannick or who else might contribute according to the core of the abstract).
  • 16th - 18th check publishing guidelines (Federico)
  • 19th - 25th english proof - Is there anybody in Edgeryders who might be helpful to check the english?
  • 26th-27th submission by Federico

bold = last adds by Federico

Title: OPENCARE: a space of possibilities as arena for daily life politics. From online conversations to on-site collaborations in caring-related activities

OpenCare is a research project delivered by a consortium of universities and SMEs, who assembled an online community with over 200 participants. Its main goal is prototyping a community-driven model for health and social care. The project’s approach is inspired by the increasing mobilization of global, heterogeneous DIY and hacker/hacker-like communities. They are characterized by a propensity to look for solutions, efficiency in action and radical openness in their practice. OpenCare reflects and is designed along those principles and constitutes itself as a bottom-up, digital, civic European arena about healthcare.

At this point in time, OpenCare has achieved half of its goals: the prototype of a care-oriented digital space is working at full scale, facilitating different kinds of care-related events, from stories of individual personal experiences, to conversations about how to improve existing health and political systems and ultimately collaborations between participants both on and offline.

The paper discusses these results in terms of the politics of everyday life: contributions to the platform are political actions taken by citizens who, while mobilizing to solve specific care-related problems (or creating preconditions for these solutions) make a political statement on the viability of an open, collaborative care system. The connections forged across sometimes disparate geographical locations and the knowledges shared through the online platform constitute new forms of online political engagement that translate into offline action. Story-sharing increases connectivity, facilitates the movement of new ideas across health and social care contexts, and leads to emergent creates new and unexpected political alliances.

We analyze this activity using an interpretative model that can be summarized in this way: the care-oriented digital space (i.e. the one realized in the OpenCare research framework) is considered as a space of possibilities. By this we mean, firstly, an environment where different care-oriented events take place and are generated by the self-driven “hacker mindset” of participants self-driven participants with a "hacker mindset". Secondly, this space is characterised by the affordances that are embedded in it and influence the existence and evolution of events.

In this conceptual framework, the discussion on when and how this space of possibilities becomes an arena for the politics of everyday life is done by observing when and how people meet in it, share information, start conversations and collaborations, and move from the digital space to a physical one. In order to do so, the paper presents four steps:

1) Prior events are analysed to give a general overview on how this space of possibilities has worked and is working. This happens in two steps. First, ethnographic coding of over 2,000 written contributions is performed: Next, the graph of relationships between ethnographic codes is examined by methods borrowed from graph theory. Specifically, we define a social network of interaction in the conversation. We then use the count and reach across the social network of co-occurrences of ethnographic codes as indicators of across-conversation convergence. This adds a quantitative dimension to the qualitative conclusions of our ethnography.

2) Meaningful events, where online conversations evolve into potential collaboration and action and their evolution from , are evaluated through the participants' motivations and their specific background cultures. This will be done using ethnographic primary data (347 posts and 1590 comments) and secondary data (3300 annotations and codes), as well as design tools.

3) Spaces of possibilities are considered to evaluate step by step the relationships between the events, their environment, and the different implicit and explicit affordances embedded in the platform.

4) The data is then analyzed with a focus on the implications and potentialities of the interactions on Open Care for the participants’ politics of everyday life.

The article concludes by introducing threads of research to be developed in the coming months, inside OpenCare and after its conclusion.

(Short bibliography)

Akrich, Madeleine (2010). « From Communities of Practice to Epistemic Communities: Health Mobilizations on the Internet », Sociological Research Online, 15. https://hal-mines-paristech.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00517657

 

Manzini, Ezio (2015). Design, When Everybody Designs. An Introduction for Social Innovation, Cambridge (MA), MIT Press.

 

Nowotny, Helga (2003). « Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge », Science and Public Policy, 30 (3), pp. 151–156.

 

Oudshoorn, Nelly & Pinch, Trevor (eds.) (2003). How Users Matter. The Co-construction of Users and Technology, Cambridge (MA), MIT Press.

 

....

...

like2

Comments

English revision...

Alberto's picture

If no native English speaker can be found, I am up for doing the reviewing. 

like0

Native English speaker

Amelia's picture

Reporting for duty. I can also do more analytical work on the paper now that I am out of the woods with work. 

like2

Thanks to both.

Noemi's picture

Let's give it a few more days to finalize it before you do the proofing.

like0

one week to go

Federico Monaco's picture

Dear all,

it's time to wrap up.

i have checked the final draft and added few words (in bold) to the abstract.

I still have few doubts about it as authors "should state the research question, the methodology, and the theoretical framework used. The abstracts will focus on the scientific relevance of the proposed article in light of the existing literature and the call for papers, and may be accompanied by a short bibliography."
 
Therefore, i have added Akrich and Nowotny in the short bibliography to mean is about politics, but we mean something a little different by the word "politics" as we are talking about experimenting new ways of doing politics (for future policies).
 
Moreover, i checked the short bibliography and it's time now for the english proof.
@Amelia if you could read and check the abstract within february 25th that would help.
In the days after (26th or 27th) i'll send the abstract, as word file, for the peer review.
 

Best greetings to all

 

like1

Small edits

Noemi's picture

It felt there are many repetitions, so I cut some.
I also added information about the data we have, following Alberto's suggestion.

Also, does anyone else read it as too fluffy in wording? too much about "events" and "possibilities" seem to hinder the real prize, or core of the issue: what about the politics of an open collaborative care system? Why do they matter? I think we should insert this in the first paragraph and last..

like1

Fully agree with this

Amelia's picture

I think the abstract needs to begin and end with the meat of the argument--- the impacts and the kind of politics the platform facilitates. Or at least, it should end with a concrete gesture towards these.

like1

Abstract Revision

Amelia's picture

Here are my revisions. I edited extensively for English, but I also agreed with @Noemi--- it needs more of a punch. The call for papers wants an argument about the function of the digital technology in the making of polity, and I think we've got a great case for a very particular and innovative kind of politics taking place on the site. I've added some things, but I know I'm late to the game so feel free to take it or leave it. I edited in a separate google doc:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/157EHPpVYgXpGJkaIYiW7isvLY1s2niC3FkSVryF-ncQ/edit?usp=sharing

 

like1

Very useful

Noemi's picture

Thanks @Amelia ! I didn't have permissions to edit the google doc, so I copy pasted it into this wiki and made my final suggestions - explicitating the principles of OpenCare and then suggesting elimination of some words. I see you kept all four points of the paper - I didnt know if we will have time to do an all-conversation analysis (point 1) which is why I suggested we start from meaningful events only- and use ethnography to describe where protagonists contexts are situated, drawing on their other posts. But not a full ethnography since we won't have enough space.. Maybe you missed this or made a decision with @Federico Monaco ?  Anyway.. it will be your call.

Thanks for adding the sentences on connectivity across disparate geographic locations and stories. I think it goes some way to making our logic more explicit.

like1

Here's how it would read without all the green markups

Amelia's picture

OpenCare is a research project delivered by a consortium of universities and SMEs, who assembled an online community with over 200 participants. Its main goal is prototyping a community-driven model for health and social care. The project’s approach is inspired by the increasing mobilization of global, heterogeneous DIY and hacker/hacker-like communities. An orientation towards action, as well as openness in both community practice and technological solutions, are at the core of how OpenCare is designed: a bottom-up, digital, civic European arena about healthcare.

At this point in time, OpenCare has achieved half of its goals: the prototype of a care-oriented digital space is working at full scale, facilitating different kinds of care-related events, from stories of personal experiences, to conversations about how to improve existing health and political systems and ultimately collaborations between participants both on and offline.

The paper discusses these results in terms of the politics of everyday life: contributions to the platform are political actions taken by citizens who, while mobilizing to solve  specific care-related problems (or creating preconditions for these solutions) make a political statement on the viability of an open, collaborative care system. The connections forged across sometimes disparate geographical locations and the knowledges shared through the online platform constitute new forms of online political engagement that translate into offline action. Story-sharing increases connectivity, facilitates the movement of new ideas across health and social care contexts, and creates new and unexpected political alliances.

We analyze this activity using an interpretative model that can be summarized in this way:  the care-oriented digital space (i.e. the one realized in the OpenCare research framework) is considered as a space of possibilities. By this we mean, firstly, an environment where different care-oriented events take place and are generated by the self-driven “hacker mindset” of participants. Secondly, this space is characterised by the affordances that are embedded in it and influence the existence and evolution of events.

In this conceptual framework, the discussion on when and how this space of possibilities becomes an arena for the politics of everyday life is done by observing when and how people meet in it, share information, start conversations and collaborations, and move from the digital space to a physical one. In order to do so, the paper presents four steps:

1) Prior events are analysed (thanks to ethnographic coding and network scientists processing data and rendering visualizations) to give a general overview on how this space of possibilities has worked and is working.

2) Meaningful events, and their evolution, are evaluated through the participants' motivations and their specific background cultures. This will be done using ethnographic primary data (347 posts and 1590 comments) and secondary data (3300 annotations and codes), as well as design tools.

3) Spaces of possibilities are considered to evaluate step by step the relationships between the events, their environment, and the different implicit and explicit affordances embedded in the platform.

4) The data  is then analyzed with a focus on the implications and potentialities of the interactions on Open Care for the participants’ politics of everyday life.

The article concludes by introducing threads of research to be developed in the coming months, inside OpenCare and after its conclusion.

 

like1

Data + interdisciplinarity

Alberto's picture

Going to say this one last time, then defer to the author's judgment. If I were a reviewer, I would find it juicy. At number 1 in Amelia's list: 

1) Prior events are analysed to give a general overview on how this space of possibilities has worked and is working. This happens in two steps. First, ethnographic coding of over 2,000 written contributions is performed: Next, the graph of relationships between ethnographic codes is examined by methods borrowed from mathematical graph theory. 

like0

If yu think this will be

Ezio Manzini's picture

If yu think this will be possible and meaningful, I totally agree

like1

Agree!

Amelia's picture

I tempered the language slightly by removing 'all,' so I think this is a totally feasible thing to suggest. And I agree with Alberto--- one of my comments on the google doc was that we needed to be more specific about what methods in network science we were specifically going to use. 

like2

Ok, how about this:

Alberto's picture

1) Prior events are analysed to give a general overview on how this space of possibilities has worked and is working. This happens in two steps. First, ethnographic coding of over 2,000 written contributions is performed: Next, the graph of relationships between ethnographic codes is examined by methods borrowed from graph theory. Specifically, we define a social network of interaction in the conversation. We then use the count and reach across the social network of co-occurrences of ethnographic codes as indicators of across-conversation convergence. This adds a quantitative dimension to the qualitative conclusions of our ethnography.

Is this specific/clear enough? 

like1

Done.

Noemi's picture

Added it in the wiki, with @Federico Monaco having the last word. We are now at 620 words.

 

like1

Thanks!

Federico Monaco's picture

Thanks @Noemi

like0

good faith in collaboration

Federico Monaco's picture

Dear all,

thanks @Alberto (the fifth author i would say!) for the last minute add and thanks to @Amelia for the hints and the effort to check the english..hope you are recovering well and easily from the surgery experience.

Great collaboration from everyone. That is what have impressed me of Edgeryders since the beginning.

..yes, i agree too, the description of methods shall be included in the paper as it witnesses the open and bottom-up spirit of the organizational/infrastructural design and how harvesting stories can (might) take to collective processes of decision-action (mobilization). There is still to define how ethnography can be considered inside the political science frame. Being OPENCARE sponsored by the European Commission, this surely helps in terms of including european policies and how to experiment new ways of dealing with representativity by actions.

like1

reduce academese a little?

trythis's picture
E.g."disparate geographical locations" to "far away places"?
like1

When you put it that way....

Alberto's picture

like1

Recent activity in this group