Cross-sectoral Collaboration and Participation_ Information and Communications Development Pilot Project (ICDPP) - a Case Study

3/1/2016 Crosssectoral Collaboration and Participation: Information and Communications Development Pilot Project (ICDPP) a Case Study
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:P6DLhyeFHSgJ:globalcn.tc.ca/gcn2001/Day.doc+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk 1/12
This is the html version of the file http://globalcn.tc.ca/gcn2001/Day.doc.
Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
Crosssectoral Collaboration and Participation: Information and
Communications Development Pilot Project (ICDPP) a Case Study

Peter Day, Richard Beard, Nikki Grimes, Nicki O’Neill
School of Information Management, Faculty of Information Technology, University of Brighton,
Watts Building, Moulsecoomb, Brighton and Hove, BN2 4GJ, UK
Tel. ++44 1273 642550
Email p.day@bton.ac.uk and p.day@btinternet.com
and
Mark Walker and Peter Mason
Sussex Community Internet Project (SCIP), Community Base, 113 Queens Road, Brighton &
Hove, BN1 3XG, UK
Tel. ++44 1273 234049
Email mark@scip.org.uk and peter@scip.org.uk

Introduction

The Brighton and Hove Information and Communications Development Pilot Project (ICDPP) is a
community informatics initiative driven by a collaborative partnership of the city’s public, voluntary,
community and academic sectors. A oneyear pilot project1
, this crosssectoral initiative aimed to
improve access to community information produced by community, voluntary and statutory sector
organisations, and improve the quality, relevance and effectiveness of available community
information. Intended as a precursor to a socially inclusive community information network (CIN),
ICDPP comprised four key components:

1)      Construction of six new community information systems in the city
2) Identification of local community information providers and their information and
communication needs
3)      Development of a network for local community information providers
4)      Identification of standards and guidelines for community information providers.

Through the processes required to achieve these goals, ICDPP provided training and support in
building community information systems – both group and onetoone. It was also instrumental in

establishing a network of community information providers through a number of workshops
intended to identify and action community sector needs.

This paper details aspects of the ICDPP life cycle, whilst offering insights into the mutuality and
reciprocity existing between community practice and research during this initiative. Before
proceeding to these issues however, the historical and conceptual context of the project will be
established.

Historical context

ICDPP developed as the result of a series of crosssectoral meetings during 1998 and 1999. The
purpose of these meetings was to explore ways in which a Community Information Network (CIN)
could be established to create a framework for the provision of community information across the
cityi
.

It should be noted however, that support for community informatics based activities in Brighton and
Hove predates these meetings. As early as 1995, representatives of community and voluntary
sector organisations, academics, local businesses, interested citizens and some local council
officers had been exploring the potential for developing a community network in Brighton and
Hoveii
. Although these attempts were to prove fruitless in developing the technical infrastructure to
support such a community network, they were successful in developing a social network of civic
interest.

By 1998 this interest focused on improving access to community information produced by
community, voluntary and statutory sector organisations, as well as improving the quality, relevance
and effectiveness of the information available. This sharpening of focus was largely due to the
support provided by the public library service, although need for improvements in this area had
been identified in a local authority sponsored research projectiii
, which investigated the support and
representation requirements of the city’s community and voluntary sector.

Although experiencing difficulties in attracting funding, a CIN Working Party2
was actively engaged
in building support within the community and voluntary sector through the provision of training and
outreach work in the community3
. Despite the social significance of these activities, it was to be
two years before £80,000 was elicited from the local authority to finance the pilot project. At this
point a revised strategy document was publishediv
and a call for tenders to manage the project
was made in May 2000. The contract was awarded to the Sussex Community Internet Project
(SCIP), a notforprofit advocacy and awarenessraising organisation that works with community

and voluntary sector groups, and in local communities to build capacity through the use of ICTs.

Stimulating community involvement

A meeting of interested parties in June 2000 discussed how to take the project forward. It was
decided to distinguish the pilot from an ICT based CIN4
, so the project was named ICDPP. This
was mainly to avoid disillusionment within the community and voluntary sector should future funding
for the full CIN prove illusive. In order to establish a sense of community ownership, it was decided
that the project should be directed at the existing community infrastructure and remained, as far as
possible, autonomous of the local authority. A Steering Group5
was formed to work alongside
SCIP and ensure project targets were met6
.

Limited resources in terms of time and funding meant that only a small number of community
information providers could participate in ICDPP. The first major challenge facing the Steering
Group was identifying which neighbourhoods, organisations and interest groups to work with. Initial
selection criteria considered during this process included: the range of organisations with different
needs, their role within communities and whether they were neighbourhood or interest based.
Peter Mason from SCIP conducted interviews with 14 of the 16 ‘communities’7
originally identified
by the Steering Group. The results were subsequently reported back and the final selection of 5
‘communities’ made8
.

Despite an occasional uneasy feeling of ‘hit and miss’ about the identification and selection
processes, this method of stimulating involvement in community activity through the CIN has the
potential to make a significant contribution to long term community developmentv
in Brighton and
Hove (See Fig. 1).

Notwithstanding the potential of the community involvement approach adopted by ICDPP, it is
important to be realistic about the number of groups and individuals that might be interested in
developing a CIN at such an early stage. Whilst, many understand the immediate benefit of more
effective information, it is unlikely that the more strategic implications of such an initiative are so
immediately clear. This is not to suggest that the benefits of knowledge sharing and collaboration
are beyond the community sector but simply that daily operational tasks, when working with
restricted resources, tend to focus attention on shortterm issues and problems. Working on a day
to day basis, many grassroots community and voluntary sector groups are not well placed to afford
themselves the luxury of longterm strategic planning.


Fig. 1 Stages of community involvement in developing Brighton & Hove's CIN

It is here that civic partnerships based on equity and mutuality can be a positive factor. Although
funded by local government and despite several members of the steering group being council
officers, the council’s role in ICDPP was one of support giver rather than agenda setter. The
project was ostensibly a community and voluntary sector initiative that might perceivably play a
factor in future City Council, egovernment strategies.

Capacity building and information and communication development

As outlined in the introduction, ICDPP comprised four key components. Space prevents a detailed
account of each of these elements, so in order to illustrate the capacity building nature of the
project the paper focuses on aspects of:
1. Information and communication needs identification
2. Development of the network of community information providers

Before this can be undertaken however, it is important to provide a definition of ‘capacity building’
so that the proper context for the project can be set. Originally, the term was often used as an
accompaniment to training. Training would be provided to enable trainees to achieve certain goals
and targets in a particular field. In the context of community practice however, an expanded
meaning has emerged. Although training courses still have a role to play, other strategies are also
employed to enable community and voluntary sector groups and organisations to engage in
broader aspects of community life such as local development partnerships and schemesvi
. In this
sense, capacity building is an important element of community development, where the latter is
defined as “ a field of specialist practice to increase the extent and effectiveness of community

activity”vii
.

Community workshops – fora for action

Although the Steering Group provided a forum of diverse community affiliations, it was necessary
to ensure it shared the same understanding as the community sector in general. Consequently, a
community and voluntary sector workshop was organised. The purpose of the workshop was to
enable the Steering Group to determine community sector requirements from a CIN and the
sector’s views on its progression.

Over 80 people from the community and voluntary sector, representing a wide variety of different
organisations and interests attended the workshop in September 2000. People were invited to
feedback their vision of what a CIN might do for them and everyone who returned evaluation forms
emphasised the need for a CIN. The general perception was that it should perform a linking,
publicising, coordinating and supportive role for community organisations. Providing a pivotal role
in developing joint strategies and information access systems. During the workshop, delegates
split into 5 breakout groups to discuss specific issues: publishing of community information, social
exclusion, building local knowledge, participation and democracy, and inventing the future.
There was obvious value in the skills and information sharing which took place during these
sessions and a lot of common ground emerged from people from different groups and affiliations.
In addition, the widerange of topics covered, e.g. issues relating to structure, organisation,
sustainability and ownership, pointed to some scope for future meetings to take place.

A second workshop, held in February 2001, aimed to build on the work of the first by posing 2
specific questions – ‘What can a CIN help us do?’ and ‘How can a CIN work for you?’ Following a
similar format as the first workshop, delegates split into breakout groups and rated their priorities
as high, medium and low, an activity that lead to some ‘heated’ discussions. This served as a
salutary reminder, if it was needed, that communities are diverse social structures, which possess
the potential for disagreement and conflict as well as for agreement and harmony. The discussions
raised a number of salient questions9
such as: ‘How can organisation workers decide what the
community wants?’ and ‘Would the CIN undermine existing community organisations?’

The overriding enthusiasm among the workshop attendees, tempered by the quality of critical
evaluation and analysis in the community and voluntary sector both informed and underpinned the
continuing work of the ICDPP Steering Group. In addition, the workshops provided invaluable data

regarding the training needs of the community and voluntary sectors, and led to the setting up of a
small working group interested in developing a set of aims and objectives for the CIN. However,
the group has not met recently and Mark Walker of SCIP believes that uncertainty surrounding the
CIN might be a factorviii
. This might be due in part to the lack of any identified funding to take the
CIN forward in the near future.

The demand for training was not surprising. However, the workshops were perhaps the first time
that this need had been articulated in such a public and collectivised manner. A subsequent
training needs evaluation10
and comparison with existing training provision led to the development
of a programme of onetoone and grouptraining sessions11
, which proved particularly beneficial
to the 5 ‘communities’ selected by the Steering Group.
Working together – community and academic practice

The paper will now examine the partnership between community and academic practice by
focusing on the contribution of a member of staff and 4 undergraduate students from the School of
Information Management at the University of Brighton. The role of Peter Day as a member of the
ICDPP Steering Group, his role as supervisor of the 4 undergraduate students Richard Beard,
Nikki Grimes, Nicki O’Neill and one other12
and their practical contribution to the project will be
considered. It is important to note at this stage that neither the staff member nor the students were
funded to undertake this work. Consequently, their contribution was given through the goodwill of
the University of Brighton and their personal commitment.

Peter Day recently completed his community informatics related PhD and has been actively
involved in local and international community informatics activities since 1995. His interest in
community ICT practice and previous local involvement lead to his invitation to attend the inaugural
meeting of the ICDPP project. However, collaborating in community activities, as rewarding as it
is, has its restrictions for an academic working without funding. Research funding enables an
academic to give the appropriate level of time and resources to initiatives such as ICDPP. With
proper funding, activities such as those that go with Steering Group membership can be offset
against other academic responsibilities. Without funding, Peter’s involvement in ICDPP became a
complex juggling act of commitments.

A study of the minutes of Steering Group meetings, for example, indicates that Peter sent
apologies for a number of meetings. During a particular part of the year13
meetings often conflicted
with Peter’s heaviest teaching and dissertation supervision workloads, making it impossible for
him to attend. Clearly, absences of any Steering Group member places an extra burden, in terms

of workload and decision making responsibility, on remaining group members. This was accepted
with good grace, as other members also often had to juggle commitments but for the community
practitioners from SCIP14
, it made acting on decisions problematic. It also lead to decisions being
made, e.g. setting up subpanels to work on specific issues, that involved Peter but which were not
communicated to him until the minutes of the meeting were published. By this time it was usually
too late.

The students’ involvement in ICDPP developed either as a result of previous involvement in
community activities or an interest in community informatics developed through their studies, or
both. Having expressed an interest in researching community informatics for their final year
dissertation project. Each student was allocated Peter as his or her project supervisor community
informatics forming part of his academic subject expertise. An initial group meeting resulted in an
agreement to participate in ICDPP, thus making their dissertation studies applied research15
. After
several meetings with Peter Mason from SCIP each student was assigned a particular
‘community’.

It is important to emphasise the reciprocity and mutuality involved in this process. Each of the
students was aware of ethical problems relating to researcher involvement in community projects. It
is all too easy for researchers to immerse themselves into their research taking from the
community but giving little back in return. The raison d’être of community practice is all too often
viewed by researchers as being to supply data for his or her research. To avoid this the students
decided that methodologically they would adopt a participatory action research (PAR) approach.
As part of this process, students participated in whatever activities the ‘community’ was
organising, making their skills, expertise and knowledge available as required. The subsequent
insights this gave into community practice and need not only strengthened their dissertations as
pieces of academic work, but as this data was made available to both their ‘community’ and
ICDPP, made a significant contribution to community practice.

Researching community ICT practice: student insights

As space is at a premium this section presents some personal insights from the students involved
in researching community practice at grassroots level. They are not intended as complete case
studies; instead they reflect issues deemed by the students to be important to the process of
collaboration between community and academic practice. Two points need to be made at this
stage. 1) The work of the students focused on activities organised by the Brunswick Community
Development Project (BCDP) and the Black and Minority Ethnic Community Partnership (BMECP)
‘communities’. Research for the other ‘communities’ selected by the Steering Group was

conducted by SCIP, in their role as project contractors. 2) A third ‘community’, the Women’s
Centre, was to have been investigated by the fourth student (see footnote 12). However, having
started working with the Centre the student felt unable to continue. This was due to the discomfort
she felt when women using the ‘Dropin Centre’ would seek her advice about their problems. The
student’s lack of experience and qualifications to deal with such situations caused her distress and
could have been detrimental to the women using the Centre, who were unable to distinguish
between Centre workers and a student. After some discussion between Peter and the student16
it
was decided to withdraw her from the project.

This raises an important consideration about the sensitive nature of researching ICTs in
environments where problems of social exclusion, in their rawest sense, might manifest
themselves.

Richard Beard focused on the development of a community website – Brunswicknet17
, placing
particular emphasis on the potential role of BCDP in delivering foundation level training to socially
excluded local citizens. Richard’s role within the Brunswicknet group was threefold.  During the
early stages of the research the website was nearing completion and the main tasks involved
analysing the content for suitability and suggesting small changes to the site design.  Once the
initial design phase was complete community based feedback sessions were organised. These
also acted as Internet Taster Days (ITDs) for those who had not previously used it.  These sessions
acted as the primary source for data gathering but also enabled Richard to work on a onetoone
basis, with individuals who had little or no computer or ICT experience.  The final phase of his
collaborative research will see the results being published on the Brunswicknet site to be used by
BCDP as a tool for reflecting upon the effectiveness of their ICT initiative.
The results of the research highlights the importance of the role of notforprofit community
initiatives in the delivery of foundation level IT education to those who are or are in danger of
becoming socially excluded.  Such initiatives are uniquely placed to act in communicating the need
of communities to the policy makers and to ensure that the implementation of such policies
reaches those most in need.  However if this research is indicative of trends within community ICT
initiatives then the community organisations involved have significant difficulties ahead. The
diversity of need that exists within the Brunswick area created problems of community penetration.

Even considering the higher levels of community acceptance that PAR techniques created there
was a genuine problem in reaching the individuals within the community who were experiencing
exclusion from ICT provision.  In developing the free Internet sessions that would act as the major
source of data for the research and deliver feedback on the Brunswicknet site, BCDP was reliant

upon the various community groups it facilitates and advertising at local public centres as the major
agents of information dissemination. Those most excluded from ICTs were unlikely to put
themselves forward to attend centrally run initiatives, such as the free Internet sessions, on the
basis of such promotions. Meanwhile resource issues and the splintering of the community into
subcommunity groups made it impossible for the workers of BCDP to develop the one to one
relationships often necessary to run inclusive initiatives. These issues of community penetration
affected attempts to represent community need in research. Richard draws 3 conclusions from his
community research experience.
1. Press policy makers for the channelling of extra resources into accurately identifying community
needs within a large number of small community groups.
2. Communicate this need back to the policy makers, despite resistance, so as to resource
community initiatives that truly meet the needs of the excluded.
3. Ensure that any community initiative addresses the wants and needs of its target group(s) as a
way of generating interest within that group(s).

Nikki Grimes also worked with BCDP but her focus centred more specifically on the needs of
excluded women in the Brunswick area. She stresses the importance of building good relations by
clarifying from the outset what each partner can expect from the other. Meetings with practitioners
and volunteers of BCDP were organised and strategies for both their projects and the research
itself were discussed and coordinated.

BCDP’s Internet Project and the ITDs had been envisaged as community development exercises.
They were facilitated by SCIP, who also provided ICTs and technological expertise. The research
was integrated into the Internet Project by holding one ITD specifically for women. The rationale
was that whilst assisting in the ICT learning programme, short interviews could be held,
observations made and questionaires completed. It also gave Nikki the opportunity to invite
participants to attend focus groups on BCDP premises where more indepth inquiry into
information needs and ICT usage could be accomplished. However, community attendance was
lower than expected which meant extending contact with other community groups such as local
mother and toddler groups for broader community input. Despite this the two focus groups were a
success and by combining the results of the questionaires, observations and focus groups a
comprehensive representation of community information needs and ICT usage was developed.

For Nikki, the collaboration between academic and community practice in this research was a
positive experience. An understanding was reached by both sides as to the restrictions and
abilities of each. Expertise was shared and heeded, and coordination and cooperation was
successful. Elements contributing to the smooth running of the research were:
stating any restrictions early on in the process.

considering the issues which affect overstretched and underfunded community organisations.
seeking advice from experienced community development practitioners good practice
through practical experience is essential when dealing with community members.
Giving advice and sharing opinion on recent theories and developments.

Relations with community residents were constructive as a result of a number of factors:
The apparent effort which had been employed in providing such facilities for their community
was recieved with enthusiasm and admiration.
When participants were aware that the research was part of a larger project which aimed to
improve infomation and communication flows within and between communities and Brighton
and Hove their feeling of empowerment was apparent
Nicki O’Neill’s research focused on formulating a participatory web design approach for BMECP,
enabling the newly established community group to deliver relevant information to the community
they represent. The research employed a twostage methodology. Data collection involved three
meetings with BMECP members utilising question led discussions; evaluation of other web sites
using a laptop computer, web browser and projector; and a card sort game, which enabled the
identification and elimination of surplus and duplicate information. These methods provided rich
detail and insight, whilst enabling the active participation of BMECP members. They were also
technically low key and did not intimidate those inexperienced in web design.

Consultation was necessary at all stages of the design process and so formed an important
component of the second design stage. This involved using tools such as NetObjects Fusion to
draw the structure, paper and pen for design sketches and 1st Page 2000 Html Editor and
NetObjects Fusion to mock up HTML pages.

Nicki also stresses the importance of establishing a successful relationship between the BMECP
and the researcher. She feels her sensitivity to the target community’s diversity, a feeling of shared
interest and the reciprocal nature of the research help achieve this. BMECP have subsequently
commented that the lessons they learned from this process will assist them in many aspects of
their work in the future. In her free time, Nicki is presently working on the design of their live site.
Conclusion

The students have benefitted from their participation in ICDPP in a number of ways. Not only did it
result in each of them excelling in their dissertation projects but it also enabled them to contribute
to community practice in a socially beneficial manner by sharing their knowledge, skills and
expertise with the local community. Similarly, their work is contributing to the final ICDPP report

which will be used to local policy development.

Each of the students has identified issues from which important lessons can be drawn,
emphasising the potential of partnerships between community and academic practice. Each piece
of research resulted in context rich data and insights into the diversity of community practice and
highlights how community research can contribute to the development of locally relevant and
representative policy making. Underlining the need for an ongoing dialogue between policy,
community practice and academic research.

ICDPP itself, has to be viewed as a work in progress, even though its 12 month duration has
expired. There is some discussion as to whether a CIN will be included in the City Council’s e
government strategies, perhaps as a component of a Digital City development. This raises issues
of control. If the CIN forms part of a Digital City plan, will it be controlled by the council? Or will it be
an autonomous area reflecting the diversity of community activities and communication found in the
real world? One thing is sure, the uncertainty that has surrounded the future of a CIN since ICDPP
began, needs to be addressed as a matter of civic urgency, if disiilusionment and
disenfranchisement is not to set in among the community and voluntary sectors. Raising the hopes
and aspirations of local civic society only to dash them through inaction and indecision is a sure
fire recipe for promoting further social exclusion.
Notes
1
The ICD pilot project is now in its report writing phase and is nearing completion.
2
Set up during the early meetings.
3
See minutes of working group meetings at http://www.scip.org.uk/cin/cinwg/minutes/index.htm
4
During ICDPP’s lifecycle references to the CIN allude to a social network of community information providers,
although the intention, funding permitting, has always been to underpin this with a technical infrastructure.
5
See http://www.scip.org.uk/icd/steering.htm for a membership and affiliation list.
6
See http://www.scip.org.uk/icd/tor.htm for a full list of the Steering Groups responsibilities.
7
Here the term ‘community’ is taken to mean both geographic community and community of interest, in that the
latter often plays a significant role in the former (see CHANAN, G. et al, Ref. v
for a more detailed discussion of this
point.
8
Brunswick Community Development Project, Community Funding News, the Black & Ethnic Minority Community
Partnership, the Women’s Centre and the Children’s Information Service (see
http://www.scip.org.uk/icd/groups/index.htm for details of these ‘communities’. See also
http://www.scip.org.uk/icd/reports/index.htm for further details of this process.
9
See http://www.scip.org.uk/cin/0602/detailedfeedback/index.htm for a detailed account of this feedback.
10
See http://www.scip.org.uk/icd/training/training%20analysis.pdf for details.
11
See http://www.scip.org.uk/icd/training/index.htm for details.
12
The reason for not naming this student will become clear.

1
13
February through to May.
14
Mark Walker and Peter Mason.
15
This was a departure from normal practice for the School of Information Management and was viewed as an
innovative experiment one that proved extremely successful.
16
She subsequently gained a 1st
class grade for a citation analysis of community informatics literature.
17
See http://www.brunswicknet.org/

i
B&HCIN, 2000. Brighton and Hove Community Information Network Working Group.
http://www.scip.org.uk/cin/cinwg/index.htm
ii
DAY, P., 2001. The Networked Community: Policies for a participatory information society. [unpublished Ph.D.
Thesis].
iii
TAYLOR, M., et al, 1998. The Voluntary and Community Sectors in Brighton and Hove: support and representation.
Brighton: Health and Social Policy Research Centre, University of Brighton.
http://www.scip.org.uk/icd/library/supportandrepresentation.pdf
iv
B&HCIN, 2000. Revised Project Brief for Development of a Community Information Network in Brighton and Hove.
http://www.scip.org.uk/cin/cinwg/revise.htm
v
CHANAN, G., et al., 2000. The New Community Strategies: How to Involve Local People. London: Community
Development Foundation.
v i
ibid. Ref. v
v ii
ibid. Ref v
p.3
v iii
WALKER, M., 2001. Information! Education! Liberation! – Creating a community information network for Brighton
& Hove: Overview of Community Information Network Meetings. Brighton: ICDPP [internal working report
unpublished].

Cross-sectoral Collaboration and Participation_ Information and Communications Development Pilot Project (ICDPP) - a Case Study

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to Cross-sectoral Collaboration and Participation_ Information and Communications Development Pilot Project (ICDPP) - a Case Study

Similar to Cross-sectoral Collaboration and Participation_ Information and Communications Development Pilot Project (ICDPP) - a Case Study (20)

Cross-sectoral Collaboration and Participation_ Information and Communications Development Pilot Project (ICDPP) - a Case Study