1 / 20

CaTalyST : Citizens Transforming Society (Tools for Change)

CaTalyST : Citizens Transforming Society (Tools for Change). Tim Dant Sociology, Lancaster, UK Ruth McNally ESRC Cesagen , Lancaster, UK (with thanks to Jon Whittle School of Computing and Communications, Lancaster, UK). Introduction. EPSRC Cross-Disciplinary Interfaces call (2010)

prue
Download Presentation

CaTalyST : Citizens Transforming Society (Tools for Change)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CaTalyST: Citizens Transforming Society (Tools for Change) Tim DantSociology, Lancaster, UK Ruth McNally ESRC Cesagen, Lancaster, UK (with thanks to Jon Whittle School of Computing and Communications, Lancaster, UK)

  2. Introduction • EPSRC Cross-Disciplinary Interfaces call (2010) • 140 EOIs, 54 submissions … 4 funded • CaTaLyST at Lancaster: • Total budget £1.9M • RCUK contribution £1.52M • Start date: October 1, 2011 • Duration: 3 Years

  3. Principles • Radical Multidisciplinary Research • Mobile Co-Location of Researchers • Community-Driven • Inclusive: LU & Beyond • Cross-Disciplinary Training

  4. Research Questions • What is the role of technology in grassroots, community-driven social innovation? • What is the vision of next-generation technologies, designed explicitly with citizen-led innovation in mind? • How can citizen innovations be scaled up and diffused across communities? • How to reflect on the process of multidisciplinary practice itself?

  5. Investigators • Computing and Communications • Gordon Blair • Paul Coulton • GerdKortuem • Awais Rashid • CorinaSas • Jon Whittle • Sociology • Monika Büscher • Tim Dant • Lucy Suchman • Cesagen • Ruth McNally • LEC • Rebecca Ellis • LUMS • Robert Fildes • Didier Soopramanien • LICA • Leon Cruickshank • Drew Hemment

  6. Community partners • Derry • Derry City Council • Derry District Policing Partnership • Manchester • MDDA (Manchester Digital Development Agency) • FutureEverything • UK-wide • RSA (Royal Society for Arts, Manufactures and Commerce) • Community Matters • Industry

  7. What are we going to do? • a series of research activities: • sprints • launchpads • relays • serendipity cafes • exploring how technology can assist communities to be innovative in solving problems

  8. Research sprints • 6-9 month research intensive investigations • Multidisciplinary academic-community teams bid in • Resource (staff, non-staff) budget made available

  9. Sprint selection criteria • Clear research goal that contributes to overall objectives & builds on previous sprints • Multidisciplinary (at least 2 disciplines; preferably more) • At least 1 team member from outside LU • Community participation • In the wild demonstrator

  10. Launchpads • Community-led, small projects • Spin-offs from sprints or feeders into sprints • Competitively bid for

  11. Relays • Connect sprints and ensure build-up of collective knowledge • 2.5 day retreats every 6 months

  12. other activities • researchers from outside Lancaster • annual conference • doctoral students (Highwire) • serendipity café – sandpit/workshop

  13. resources • 3 RAs • Part-time (50%) administrator • 2 academics at 50% per sprint • Budget for research sprints • ~£18K • Community Launch Pads • £2-10K • Research Relays: £39K • Impact & Dissemination: £50K • Ring-fenced costs: ~£75K

  14. Management 1 • Project PI: Whittle • WP Leaders: • Sprints, Ellis • Launch-pads, Dant • Workshops & Networking, Coulton • External affairs, Whittle • Training, Soopramanien • PROTEE, McNally • Impact/Dissemination, Whittle

  15. Management 2 • Steering Committee • PROTEE committee

  16. Why PROTEE? • Like BRIDGE, CaTalySTinvolves the development of innovative IT responses to societal needs • Needs a method for upstream introduction of alternative to conceptualizations of IT solutions as neutral technological fixes • Also needs a method to engage with and analyse the dynamics of multidisciplinary research

  17. PROTEE as Socio-Technical Therapy • A ‘tool’ for upstream management of radical innovation projects • Informed by science and technology studies • Innovation as socio-technical; a collective experiment • Technology as a ‘script’ which defines a framework of action together with the actors and the space in which they are supposed to work’(Akrich 1992: 208) • PROTEE as a dialogic process leading to ‘re-descriptions’ structured by PROTEE indicators

  18. PROTEE Indicator Classes Realism/Realisability From linear technological trajectory to contingent, heterogeneous and interdependent landscape. An ecology. Strategy/Negotiability/Empathy Treat internal and external opposition, competition, indifference as opportunities for learning. (Multidisc) Falsifiability Design and conduct of trials with the potential to surprise the innovators, and to jeopardize their claims.

  19. PROTEE in CaTalyST • Management tool and research tool • Dialogues between PROTEE team and multidisciplinary Sprint project teams …. • leading to a different kind of paper trail – a new ‘literary technology’ for the ‘virtual witnessing’ of the projects … • that increases opportunities for learning … • and is conducive to a more reflexive innovation process – where lessons learnt from the redescriptions can change the innovation project

  20. ideas welcome! • new ideas for sprints and launchpads • adapt existing ideas, contacts, links • look out for website, press release

More Related