The emerging nature of cyberspace has caught the imagination of writers for decades. Prolific science fiction writers in the mid-1980s introduced what were then radical ideas about how the Internet would create a space for perfect regulation.22 Today, this question of regulation has become more relevant then ever before. Increasingly society is using the Internet for commercial enterprise. As a result, control is coded by commercial interests, and backed by government legislation.23 Yet resistance to this control is spreading throughout many digital communities that perceive themselves as being oppressed.
For some founders of the digital era such as Linus Torvalds25 ,the ability to communicate and share information has always been fundamental to both personal and professional development. These technological pioneers have attempted to provide the tools for individuals to contribute to a community. These contributions allow individuals to create, adapt and adopt the rules that govern the digital community’s very social fabric—its code.
Information within Cyberspace
It is the ability for individuals to contribute to the community that provides the context for information to be applied to practices. More generally stated, our participation within the digital world allows individuals to build relationships with others. These relationships form the foundation for our collective social interactions within the online space.
It is only recently that researchers have begun addressing the social consequences of new technologies. Our optimistic perception that technology will radically transform our business processes have been somewhat tempered in recent years. Researchers are beginning to realize that “technology does not have any impact per se, it is all a matter of choices, power and situated change— the digital economy is not evolving by itself; it is all about choices at the societal, company and individual level” (Anderson, Fogelgren-Pedersen & Varshney, 2003, p. 211). The management of the technology that controls information is becoming increasingly important.
This chapter assumes that the important choices regarding the very design of digital communication must be based on the values of the community using the technology. As technology continues to shape society’s material structure, individuals and organizations must work to regulate these technological developments by supporting initiatives that represent the values of the community.
The Role of ICTs in Community Practices
The need to support community practices through information and communication technologies (ICTs) is not a new idea. The evolution of document retrieval systems—historically used to store publications, and searched through keyword indexes—has changed into something substantially more sophisticated. A similar evolution has occurred in software applications once designed as contact databases that now offer fully featured customer relationship management (CRM) applications. These similar forms of information and communication technologies (ICTs) have been met with mixed success. Horwitch and Armacost of Bain & Company suggest that the cause of this mixed success stems from poor deployment.
Critics will point out that consulting companies have a vested interest in advancing high-tech solutions (Oshea & Madigan, 1997, p. 92). Furthermore, despite the fact that many clients will face similar issues, these consulting companies sell themselves on their ability to develop unique solutions (Oshea & Madigan, 1997, p. X). Given this information, it becomes reasonable to view the advice of consulting companies on this matter skeptically. To address the tough questions on efficiency and effectiveness of ICTs, researchers are exploring how technological developments interact with communities and organizations from sociological and ethnographic perspectives (see Pinkett & O’Bryant 2003, Wakeford 2003, Wenger 2004a and Wenger 2004b). These researchers are working to address how to evaluate and develop ICTs that add value for the individuals within the community. Although each of the researchers approach the issue of value creation in different ways, all situate the application of information at the individual as apposed to the organizational level. This is a fundamental shift in context from researchers such as Kaplan and Norton (2004) who suggest that knowledge is a commodity that is made available to community members (rather then being created by them).
Perhaps one of the greatest difficulties in approaching the question of what role ICTs should play within community practices involves developing an understanding of different ways in which a community can be supported. In this chapter we assume that the application of information to relevant situations results in the creation of knowledge. As this information influences others through their participation in the process of learning, the community develops a more or less unified view of the world. This perspective is incompatible with Kaplan and Norton’s perspective of knowledge as an organizational asset (although knowledge is not viewed as an asset, that does not mean that information is necessarily openly shared or unprotected from outside access). Knowledge that emerges from the application of information through the daily practices of a group needs to be supported by technology differently than information that is to be applied for control and management of future actions.
“Through BCcampus educators receive development funds for creating online learning resources, access to a shareable online learning resources (SOL*R) repository, training and dissemination of best practices, and support for communities of interest.” (Paul Stacey, 2007)
If we are to accept that knowledge is what communities have accumulated over time to understand the world and act effectively in it, then those who form the community membership must also actively manage knowledge that is created (Wenger, 2004(a), p. 230). Knowledge management systems (KMSs) can be viewed as nothing more than a set of tools used to aid individuals in communication, supplying information that may be used by others when considering problems that seem similar in nature. In other words, KMSs provide an alternative medium for individuals to view and contribute to the practices of a community.
Design Considerations
If ICTs are to support individuals and their contributions to the organizational learning process, then community members should become active participants in the design of these new technologies; individuals must begin asking questions about technical system designs and the way in which our communities are located within their production and use (Wakeford, 2003, p. 230). The involvement of individuals to guide the use of technological resources becomes more than just a question of matching business processes to system design and implementation principles, individuals within the community where these systems are being applied must accept the constraints and limitations that are used to regulate behaviour within this digital space.
The regulation of our behaviour, however, is only viewed negatively as a form of oppression when this regulation violates our social values. In fact, our fierce desire to protect and defend our national values provides a source of strength that we should use to create a digital environment that reflects our interests as independent organizations and Canadian citizens. As such, fundamental design criteria should address questions of intellectual property, free speech, privacy and security, in a manner that reflects the values of the collective digital community—and perhaps the Canadian society generally.
