Author: muge

In a 2014 Guardian article about the sharing economy, writer Evgeny Morozov wrote: “…there is nothing to celebrate here: it’s like handing out everybody earplugs to deal with intolerable street noise, instead of doing something about the noise itself”. Is it the same for digital social innovations (DSI)?

DSIs empower civil society by enabling exchange and sharing of resources and information on digital platforms. For example the beTobe network matches individual volunteers with non-profit organisations, CALM by SINGA platform in France matches refugees with local hosts. The crowdfunding platform Humaid collects funds for disability projects, while the I Wheel Share platform collects data on accessibility conditions in real spaces.

Ideally, a transformative innovation is a game changer; it brings about systemic change that solves a problem at its root, rather than providing ex post solutions effective only in the short run. Sadly, most DSI cases seem far from being game changers in this sense, but rather provide temporary relief in the wake of a severe economic crisis and in the face of deepening environmental and social problems.

However, given the vast advantages of increased speed and scale of interactions enabled by ICT, DSIs can fulfil their transformative potential. This highly depends on their efficacy in helping civil society and communities to construct and formulate problems, in bringing these problems into public arenas, in enhancing their perception of their own agency, and in engaging a broad variety of stakeholders in finding solutions. For this to happen, there are at least three obstacles, however.

Obstacle 1: Survival and autonomy

Most DSI platforms have problems with sustaining themselves to ensure their survival and autonomy in the long run. Non-profits often have fund raising and resource access problems and rely on donations.  Those backed by a parent non-profit (or for-profit) organisation, often rely on complementary activities of the parent, which makes them dependent on the latter. Some other business models in for-profit cases are based on commissions from users, premium payments, or commercialising data of users, which cause privacy problems. These business models can be in tension with the social mission that their existence relies on. Therefore in the long run they can turn into mainstream for-profit enterprises.

Obstacle 2: Digital literacy and civic engagement

According to recent data on digital economy and society in Europe,  85% of people have internet access. But digital inclusion goes well beyond mere access and concerns questions about what people do on the internet when they are connected, which depends on socioeconomic variables and geography. The most common activities in Europe are sending and receiving e-mails, finding information, social media and online shopping. And some studies show that those who are active in civic platforms are the ones who are already active in volunteering or other civic society activities, raising concerns about the extent to which DSI can truly bring about structural change.Moreover, according to studies, participation in open platforms like Wikipedia also depends on a range of socioeconomic variables, clearly pointing to persistent exclusion of certain groups or geographies in engagement. The digital society landscape is still far from being truly inclusive and egalitarian.

Obstacle 3: Lack of cross-sectoral networks

A third problem is the lack of enduring networks between different stakeholders contributing to social and environmental progress. Digital social innovators seem to be cornered in digital bubbles, in niche sectors supported and fed by specific ecosystems where contradicting interests prevail. Most of these networks originate from the digital sector, rather than sector-specific experts in related problem areas. The existence of bridging organisations that could serve as intermediaries between different stakeholders is critical, but weak. For example in France, national digital think thank Conseil National du Numérique does not address social and environmental issues, and neither does the digital cluster Cap Digital, reinforcing the isolation of digital networks from specific sectors concerned.

Whether these obstacles will be overcome in the future remains to be seen. The transformative power of DSI also depend on which sectors they address, but these three obstacles seem to be critical for all of the sectors concerned.

 

Digital social innovations are novelties that use, develop, or rely on digital technologies to address social and/or environmental problems. They include a broad group of digital platforms, which facilitate peer-to-peer (or business-to-peer, peer-to-business) interactions. In our research on digital social innovations in France, we identified five platform models they rely on in governing the interactions between their users, which also form the basis of their business models. These models govern how the information, knowledge, or resources flow in the platform.

Matchmakers form pairs

These platforms match users (like a, b, c, d) with each other according to their specific needs or provisions. In most cases they give rise to interactions between pairs of users that best meet each others’ needs. Examples are plenty, like sharing platforms or volunteering platforms. These platforms work well for spot exchanges that do not require high commitments, and are short term. Digital reputation is an important component that sustains relations in the platform. However, when the matching model is used for longer term and more committed relations, that are often based on meaningful deliberations around a specific cause, and among a tightly knit community of users, they might not work well, due to issues of trust, or lack of joint objectives that sustain the collaborations in the long run.

Knowledge brokers transfer knowledge and experiences

These platforms transfer knowledge between users. While they too can be based on the rules of matching, they involve more refined knowledge exchanges, often based on personal experience, or knowledge and expertise about a specific subject. Knowledge transfer takes place usually in a directional manner, from one group of users to another. The users can be experts in a certain field, or people who need customized advice or expert opinion. In the figure, (a, b, c) form one group of users, and (1,2,3) form another. Medical research platforms are an example, where patients (or relatives of patients) explain their symptoms and problems and researchers  provide advice, and also use this knowledge in their research. These platforms are useful for cases in which a deeper knowledge transfer is required, or more trust based relations as compared to spot exchanges.

Pools collect dispersed information

These platforms form a common pool of knowledge or information. Pools are platforms in which information is collected in a central pool, and accessible to all users of the platform. This is akin to the wiki model, where many users participate (often) in an open manner, and the pool is (usually) open to anyone who wants to have access to the resources. Pools are good for problems that can be effectively solved by collecting dispersed information pieces and for problems that require collective intelligence; user commitment can range from collaborative to spot users. For example IWheelShare in France is a platform in which users can signal places that are suitable or unsuitable for people with disabilities in urban areas.

Crowdsourcing platforms give direction to distributed resources

These platforms give direction to distributed resources. They help generate support for individual projects (or causes). They can be general purpose, like the case of Kisskissbankbank, which is a platform where any project can be funded. They can also be specialized on a certain problem, like Bluebees, which is confined only to agricultural projects. This model works well for mobilising people around certain problems to increase awareness or legitimacy (like in e-petitions), or in generating monetary or other kinds of support for a certain social issue; like disability, or sustainability. In some crowdsourcing platforms, there are collaborative relations between the funders and the project owners. This may depend on the level of support provided by the funder. For example in the case of journalism, project owners can feel a  strong connection to their funders, and can have various sorts of collaborative relations. In the figure, a,b,c are shown as funders, and 1,2,3 are projects.

Alerters monitor the environment and signal problems

Alerters are platforms that signal the users when a certain threshold is passed, or when a certain event occurs, mostly through mobile devices. These platforms work well in cases where the problem is related with the users’ restricted or limited abilities to keep track of relevant information or in alerting urgencies. Alerters are often confined to alerting the users themselves, or users’ social networks. In the figure this is shown by the arrows from a (the user) to A (user or her social network).

Social entrepreneurs, nonprofits, and other actors that operate platforms for social and environmental problems should consider the match between the nature of the problems they address and their mechanisms of operation, for increased effectiveness and long term survival.

Müge Ozman and Cédric Gossart