Reflections: openness, leading and the GeoWeb

In update report three, I quoted the following paragraph as capturing the overall intent of the research:

… consider research that explores realities not yet in existence. Investigators join in generating virtual worlds … in which people may participate. Through their participation they learn of the potentials of such worlds, and such knowledge can be used to refashion existing institutions (Gergen & Gergen 2000, p.19).

I thought that not only could existing institutions be refashioned but also new institutions or ways of being, be created. The intent of expressing this to participants was to communicate the generative possibilities of the research to follow what they chose to create. It is an example of my early positive stance and attempts at openness. My journal contains several entries in which I reflected upon my position within the research, subjectivity and power relationships following the advice of Dowling (2010), for example Figure 4-26.

Trying not to lead participants was important to normalise power relationships, for ethical reasons, and to maintain openness. For example, I did not want to advocate for particular applications, or my use of the SoOE applications to be seen as a de facto recommendation of these. The repeated referral to openness as a defining characteristic of GeoWeb 2.0 (Anderson 2007; De Longueville 2010; O'Reilly 2005) suggested that requiring volunteered information to conform to a particular standard or classification system was unnecessary and could inhibit participation. Therefore, an emphasis on openness remained an important goal of the SoOE. The experience, described in 4.2.3, of how visitation rates appeared to align with my activities

reassessment of the concept of the researcher in PAR as a disinterested facilitator; their influence on participation, a position of power, is essentially inescapable.

Figure 4-26: Research journal page 96, 7 July 2011

The concept of openness was also influential in my assessment of other platforms such as RedMap, drawing strident questioning of my perception of openness (21/12/11). I began, however, to suspect that the objective of the SoOE was too broadly focussed. Shirky (2008, 2010) maintained that crowdsourcing projects needed to be focussed enough to appear achievable to participants. The direct relevance to participants’ lives of collecting information for State of Environment reporting was difficult to establish, as its purpose was more strategic. This was later confirmed by offline feedback. In my journal I noted a shift from trying to create a SoOE, to demonstrating the concept of community-based information sharing.

A professional GIS magazine article (Young 2011) described the emerging crowdsourcing of geographic information in Australia and concluded that regardless of political restraints and public sector conservatism its expansion was inevitable. The article missed the importance of

Neogeography, the power of GeoWeb 2.0 to allow creations such as the SoOE. Such creations may be simple now but developments would progress to provide increasing ability such that “the community do more than volunteer GI they volunteer GIS” (AC journal p. 99.3, 13/7/12).

This viewpoint was to be tempered by later experience and learning. The intimations of this can be seen in the technical difficulties that began to be experienced, showing that not all GeoWeb 2.0 applications were easy to use. At the time these were interpreted only as personal limitations. In hindsight, it is possible to see more clearly how these emerging technical difficulties, together with the conundrums involved in not trying to over-influence participants led to a reluctance to encourage or catalyse further online participant action. At this stage I can identify a shifting in methodological focus from PAR to more AR, and in which auto- ethnography becomes relatively more important.

4.4 Summary

The first three PAR cycles addressed research objective 2 and 3, investigating the potential of free GeoWeb 2.0 services (FGW2S), for community-based sharing of environmental information and, in the process, also revealing factors influencing participation. The FGW2S used were free and easy to use to publish a variety of information immediately and widely, and supported the online collaboration of research participants. The incorporation of broad subject matter, different representations and information from multiple participants, demonstrated the ability of the FGW2S to allow individuals to unilaterally and collectively publish a broad range of environmental information. The spatial capabilities of the SoOE Map facilitated my developing understanding of the nature of a municipal water leak. The potential risks of vandalism from sharing information on indigenous heritage sites highlighted how complete openness is not always appropriate. Technical difficulties were encountered with the FGW2S that tempered the perspective they are necessarily easy to use. The technical difficulties arose partly as more information was incorporated.

Other existing applications of GeoWeb 2.0 for participatory environmental information sharing were identified and described. These applications incorporated aspects such as easy free access to information and resources, two-way interactivity, creative commons licensing, and open source software. As I described my unfolding understanding of GeoWeb 2.0 the diversity of terminology and related potential for misunderstanding first became apparent.

Participants both embraced the potential use of GeoWeb 2.0 and doubted the relevance of such use, questioning the quality of information created. Through offline communication participants referred aspects of GeoWeb 2.0 they considered relevant, exposed their interests and level of understanding. and issues of importance affecting their participation. The nature of GeoWeb 2.0 and purpose of the SoOE was not clear to all participants. Working sessions conducted offline attempting to address technical issues highlighted the importance of offline collaboration.

Statistics collected by the SoOE Wiki and Map provided data on those viewing content. This numbered more than the registered participants, certain topics were favoured, and included international visitors. Visitation numbers continually increased, as did the number of countries from which these visitors originated, and varied across spatial and temporal dimensions. Patterns of online visitation appeared to correlate with my activities and were cause for reflection on the nature of openness, how I acted and the potential for unintended effects on participation. Maintaining participation appeared to be influenced by my continued activity and linking to other online applications.

However, the anomalies between views and unique viewers, and which visits were people and which were machines remained unresolved. The degree the statistics represented reliable “real” human interest was questionable, Tancer (2009) highlighted the ease of misinterpretation and I did not have the required specialist expertise for interpretation. Due to these issues I focussed increasingly on offline participation and qualitative methods, marking another bifurcation (Phelps & Graham 2010; Phelps & Hase 2005) point in my research.

These topics are relevant for environmental sustainability for, as Smith and Stirling (2010, p.1) point out, “questions over who governs, whose system framings count and whose sustainability gets prioritised are all pertinent to social-ecological systems research”. Tracking web participation can help determine the characteristics of audiences for environmental information shared online and to interpret their interests such that multiple perspectives can be incorporated. Doing so unequivocally requires, however, understanding of and expertise in web analytics a capability not available to the broader community. It relies therefore on the benefice of a technological elite.

Complexity theory was used as guidance for my role in the research, suggesting a limited role of encouraging desirable activity and discouraging undesirable activity, such as the exposure

of significant values. This would allow maximum potential for self-organisation to occur. Rates of online participation were broadly consistent with those reported for other Web 2.0 initiatives. Anomalies in the statistics, and the potential that visits included automated web agents or robots, contributed to a growing concern regarding interpretation.

Chapter 5

Wider participation and perspectives (late