Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Final Conference Workshop 1: Practices - Facilitator: Guntram Geser

  • Login to see the comments

  • Be the first to like this

Final Conference Workshop 1: Practices - Facilitator: Guntram Geser

  1. 1. Links-up Final Conference Budapest, 22 September 2011 Web 2.0 for Social Inclusion: Bridging Practices and Policies Workshop 1: PRACTICES Facilitator: Guntram Geser
  2. 2. Focus and main question <ul><li>Focus: Web 2.0 and social inclusion – practices (good and bad ones) </li></ul><ul><li>Main question: What works with whom under which conditions? </li></ul>
  3. 3. Web 2.0 and social inclusion <ul><li>Hypothesis: Web 2.0 (Learning 2.0) can support social inclusion </li></ul><ul><li>Yet, very small evidence base – mainly case studies of projects – e.g. Links-up 24 case studies </li></ul><ul><li>Projects are experiments with intervention concepts </li></ul>
  4. 4. Intervention concepts <ul><li>Main focus: Re-engagement in education, vocational training, LLL </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Learning (i.e. acquisition of competences) is understood as a strong driver of social inclusion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Requires active engagement (discipline) by individuals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Important basis of employability and participation in social life </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. <ul><li>Some related focus points </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Develop alternatives to traditional educational settings (Notschool) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Promoting creative activity (Roots & Routes) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Vocational orientation and job finding (MOSEP) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Counselling young people in critical situation (Cyberhus) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Strengthening deprived communities and minorities (Web in the Hood, Savvy Chavvy) </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Web 2.0 practices – major issues <ul><li>Overcome resistance of organisational cultures – ingrained mindsets and working paradigms of professional communities (schools/teachers, social workers, youth offending teams,…) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Requires commitment and support by management </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Need to show that there are also benefits for the organisation and professional staff </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Involve trusted third parties and intermediaries </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. <ul><li>Web 2.0 tools per se do not drive inclusion, participation and learning </li></ul><ul><ul><li>In the first place social barriers to participation must be addressed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>People - and organisations - must be convinced that social activity and learning on the Web is worth the effort </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Need to build trust and achieve buy-in by leading community members (e.g. migrant communities) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Peer mentoring can help drive participation and outcomes </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. <ul><li>Get clear about appropriate methods and tools </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Avoid approach of “build it and they will come” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Initial lack of e-skills always requires a “blended” approach </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Also promotes social relations and sharing of experiences among participants </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Can then be extended and enhanced by using Web 2.0 tools </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Usage of tools must be reflected thoroughly (simple tools vs. scaleable platforms) </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. <ul><li>How to demonstrate impact </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Often difficult in projects with hard to reach groups under the pressure of funding regimes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Involve relevant third parties and multipliers systematically (e.g. local cultural centres and media) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Document interventions and results regularly </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Present role models of success – help convince target communities, organisations and sponsors </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. Does Web 2.0 support social inclusion? PRO CON Discussion
  11. 11. <ul><li>PRO </li></ul><ul><ul><li>It can empower people to express themselves, have their voices heard </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>But, avoid “intervention concepts” for Web 2.0 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Example from participant from Romania (G8WAY project): young Roma people do not really feel to be socially excluded, they have a strong sense of belonging to their social community </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Yes, it can support, but people need “stability” of learning 2.0 environments like in traditional learning settings (though not the same) </li></ul></ul>Does Web 2.0 support social inclusion?
  12. 12. <ul><li>PRO continued… </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Need appropriate design approaches -> participatory design! </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Yes, but projects need to be more ambitious and serious about what they promise to deliver </li></ul></ul>Does Web 2.0 support social inclusion?
  13. 13. <ul><li>CON </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Depends on the “intervention concept” used </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Time to tell the EC this paradigm does not work </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>People still afraid of the technologies, because they change too quickly </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Projects need to be more innovative </li></ul></ul>Does Web 2.0 support social inclusion?
  14. 14. Contact <ul><li>Join the LINKS-UP Community @ </li></ul>Dr. Guntram Geser, MTM Salzburg Research, Austria [email_address]