Local Learning and Transferring of Best Practices

1. * Local Learning and Transferring of Best Practices Jukka Oksa jukka.oksa@joensuu.fi University of Joensuu, Karelian Institute Joensuu, 18 February 2009

2. * Problems of transfer through projects: The Case of the Community Net Model 2. Lessons about transferring Models through Study trips in Deserve project3. Features of Community for Development From Network Concept to New Communities for Development

3. Community Network ”Learning Karelia Hills” 2000-01 Valtimo Nurmes Net can be accessed from • workplace • schools • open access kiosks • home • abroad • with FirstClass-software • Internet-browser Lieksa Juuka Ilomantsi Tuupovaara - inhabitants about 45 000 - registered users over 9 000 (spring 2001)

4. * Success story Community Nets in North Karelia and Finnish OSKU Learning Regions (Funded by Sitra Foundation) Upper KareliaNurmes, Juuka, Valtimo Karelian Hills extensionLieksa, Ilomantsi, Tuupovaara Central Karelia and Outokumpu district (Oppiva)Kesälahti, Kitee, Rääkkylä, Tohmajärvi, Värtsilä, Outokumpu, Polvijärvi North LaplandSodankylä, Inari, Utsjoki Kainuu OskuHyrynsalmi, Kuhmo, Paltamo, Ristijärvi, Suomussalmi Pieksämäki district (PiiSavo)Haukivuori, Jäppilä, Kangasniemi, Pieksämäki, Pieksämäen mlk, Virtasalmi Padasjoki district (ePäijänne) Padasjoki, Asikkala, Sysmä, Kuhmoinen East-Uusimaa (Kehä 5)Lapinjärvi, Liljendal, Myrskylä, Pernaja, Pukkila East Turkuurban area Helsinki Maunula (Nettimaunula)urban area Turunmaa Archipelago Dragsfjärd, Houtskari, Iniö, Kemiö, Korppoo, Nauvo, Parainen, Västanfjärd Earlier Studies Model Area Oksa & Turunen 2002

5. * Model of Best Practice Upper Karelia Project Model Net content Project activities Community net Free access points Users Peer trainers *

6. * Model of Best Practice Open Access Kiosks + the most densely networked periphery in the world (open access point for every 600 inh.) + access for those not having computer + shops, banks, post offices, libraries + clubrooms of youth, pensioners, and unemployed - not finding space for kiosks in the most remote villages Oksa & Turunen: Evaluation Study of the Learning Upper Karelia, 2000

7. * Model of Best Practice Peer Training + against digital divide: basic computer skills for all, including the unemployed, small entrepreneurs, youth, pensioners, voluntary associations + building upon local knowledge: the unemployed were trained to become project workers: peer trainers, support persons, network managers + support to school classes and parents Oksa & Turunen: Evaluation Study of the Learning Upper Karelia, 2000

8. * Success story Computer training and network access for all

9. * Success story Learning Karelian Hills Network Registered Users by Municipality, 31 December 2001 NumberShare of population Nurmes 2 595 26,8 % Juuka 1 549 23,8 % Valtimo 892 30,3 % Lieksa 1 885 12,6 % Ilomantsi 920 13,2 % Tuupovaara 374 16,8 % Together 8 215 19,0 % In addition there were about 700 users from outside the region. Oksa & Turunen: Evaluation of the Learning Karelian Hills Project, 2002

10. * Model of Best Practice Professor Manuel Castells in Upper Karelia, December 2000

11. Problems in Transferring to new Locations • Short-time project vs. local continuities • Connecting to local interests and values • Creating local network contents • Focusing and prioritizing

12. * Problems in new locations • Short-time project vs. local continuities • Connecting to the network of municipality administration was difficult. Opposing gatekeepers in some localities • Lacking time (18 months was too short time to start new processes.) • Short term employment of project workers (trainers and managers), breaks in the middle of project. Jukka Oksa & Jarno Turunen 2002

13. * Problems in new locations • 2. Difficulties in connecting to local interests and values • Finding hosts for open access kiosks, different interests and changing rules. • Struggles over technology: • - Lay users: “Information technology is not for us.” • Experts: “This is wrong software for us.” • Users did not feel the network as their own "It became a teaching project, not a learning project." Jukka Oksa & Jarno Turunen 2002

14. * Problems in new locations • 3. Creating local network contents • Lacking skills of content makers • Lacking motivation or understanding of the possibilities, administration and enterprises felt that existing www -homepages were enough. • Lacking of local participation Jukka Oksa & Jarno Turunen 2002

15. * Problems in new locations • 4. Focusing and prioritizing • Conflicts that were not solved in the beginning. • Too narrow target focus (e.g. school kids) or two competing aims (net portal and First Class based net) in a project. • Expectation that the Funding Partner decides over local conflicts Jukka Oksa & Jarno Turunen 2002

16. Transferring of models (1): Hopeful Thinking Information and experiences about models Models of the Best Practice Transferring of models: seminars, study trips, presentations, www pages, media Learning from others Local Activities and Solutions, Place A Local Activities and Solutions, Place B

17. Conclusion about for Study Trips as a tool for transferring models - The study group on a trip should consist of persons with different and complementary skills, who have however a common objective (problem). - The trip should be an opportunity to learn to know new people who have similar interests and challenges. - The joint learning process should be continued after the trip in group discussions and seminars. - The trip should support a longer process of networking and co-operation.

18. Transferring of models (2): Learning Together

19. Joint Learning Overcomes Barriers of Transferring Experience: 1) Helps to overcome problems of mediation and interpretation of experiences. 2) Integrates the exchange of formal and informal (tacit knowledge, e.g. experience). 3) Connects common objectives with understanding of different contexts. 4) Calls for the participation of different kinds of partners (different administrative levels, public, private, voluntary sectors, etc.), which extends networks. Learning together

20. Policy Conclusions 1) Policies should target more on Joint Learning instead of transferring models. 2) Transfer of models or dissemination of the Best Practices is futile (an empty token), if it is not part of Joint Learning processes. 3) Joint Learning leads to larger networks, improved and more sustainable impacts, and wider participation. Learning together

21. * Explanations of Success and Failure Concepts explaining Success and Failure- Changing Context - Learning Networks *

22. * Explanations of Success and Failure Changing Contexts: Place and Time- Development processes cannot be understood out of their context (local, social, cultural). - Different local resources. Different actors with objectives of their own.- Success cannot be copied from one context into another. - Different time is change of context: Being first is different identity from becoming second. Accumulated experience differs. *

23. * Explanations of Success and Failure Three Factors of Success in Upper Karelia Project Connecting Local to Global Regional Council’s support to project planning. SITRA’s expertise and flexible funding. ”Together we can learn anything.” ”Locality is not isolation, rather it is an arena for a joint encounter with the challenges of the world.” Sufficient support from outside Local Learning Process Jukka Oksa & Jarno Turunen 2002

24. * Explanations of Success and Failure Community Net Improved Connections • New possibilities for interaction are created. • Locally generated interactions of rural and urban people are initiated. • Experience of being in periphery is turned into proactive activity. • Local knowledge is translated into network contents, used by the locals. • Local groups are helped to connect to regional, national and international partners and knowledge resources. *

25. * Explanations of Success and Failure The Need to be Locally Inclusive: The Alliance of Developers and the Everyday Needs In the best case the Network for Development is supported and accepted by the communities of everyday life. They are felt to be "on our side". This is difficult because success creates social distinctions and social differences. The challenge is to keep the Development Network and its successes inclusive, allowing new groups to share the in the success. *

26. * Who is the Developer ? Renewed Concept of Communities for Development. Why?Power in networks: Networks consist of leading nodes and nodes that follow. Periphery means isolation.Sources of power in networks: - coordination (local coordination) - concepts: definition of objectives- recognition of resources (knowledge and identity resources)- Initiative!

27. * Explanations of Success and Failure Knowledge and Identity are Network Resources The collective learning process can be seen in terms of constructing and using knowledge and identity as resources. This is the definition of social capital as defined by Ian Falk and Sue Kilpatrick (2000). Building social identity means building new communities. *

28. * Explanations of Success and Failure Construction of Social Capitalbased on Falk & Kilpatrick 2000 *

29. * ContactsJukka OksaUniversity of JoensuuKarelian InstitutePO Box 111, FIN-80101 Joensuu, FinlandPhone +358-(0)13-251 2454Fax +358-(0)13-251 2472 jukka.oksa@joensuu.fiResearch on local information societyhttp://cc.joensuu.fi/~alma/infosoc/This lecture is available athttp://cc.joensuu.fi/~alma/lue/ *