Re: New Pathways/New Relationship
Larry Tague (ltague@physio1.utmem.edu)
Wed, 2 Apr 1997 13:47:17 -0600 (CST)
Kathy,
Thanks a million for your very well stated commentary concerning community
as it relates to the potential for community networking. I only wish that
this information had arrived earlier in the community networking
discussion. You have "hit the nail on the head" with so many of your
statements that my head is still spinning. However, I will attempt to
insert supportive information (experiential), as examples from some of our
own experience, to emphasize some of the more important points.
See below...
Larry Tague
Co-Director of MECCA*
Research Associate Dept. of Physiology & Biophysics
Phone Bus.: 901-448-7152 U.T. Memphis
Phone FAX: 901-448-7126 894 Union Ave.
e-mail:ltague@physio1.utmem.edu or Memphis, TN 38163
ltague@mecca.mecca.org
*MECCA (Memphis Educational Computer Connectivity Alliance)
URL: http://www.mecca.org/
On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Kathy Schroerlucke wrote:
> My name is Kathy Schroerlucke. As consultant, working in the
> Pittsburgh area to assist the development of community technology
> centers, I've been asked to participate in this conference and
> discussion. I am also doing some consulting for the Community
> Technology Centers' Network (http://www.ctcnet.org).
In my opinion CTCnet is a great organization, and their mission statement
embodies much of what we are about in community networking in Memphis.
"Community Technology Centers' Network (CTCNet) envisions a society in
which all people are equitably empowered by technology skills and usage.
CTCNet is committed to achieving this end. "
> As brain studies are suggesting, it's not just the connection but the
> quality of the connection and the material that passes through the
> connection that is important.
The quality of what we provide on our community networks for educational
and informative delivery will play an important role in stimulating the
"dormant parts of our community brain". One community that I have been
working with for the past two years is the senior community. Many in our
society consider this community to be dormant by it's "retired" nature.
However, if you provide the proper stimulant through training and
interactive computer networking, you discover a valuable community
resource capable of adding much to our collective community learning.
> What technology represents (among other things) is a way to
> reconnect pathways to these dormant areas and to generate pathways
> into new areas. The initiative to create these pathways requires new
> patterns of thinking, new patterns of relating, and new patterns of
> working together. To the extent we engage in new patterns, we
> unleash potential.
Memphis seniors involved in the MECCA Senior/K-12 initiative are an
excellent example of creating "new patterns of relating, and new patterns
of working together". With this model program we have created community
between children, teachers, parents, and seniors.
> What is considered knowledge is directly connected to who has the
> power to legitimize what is considered knowledge. As long as
> academic research serves its own interest as the priests of
> knowledge, then communities and academics will continue to be
> disconnected---parts of the brain and the human community will
> continue to be undeveloped.
All that I can do with this statement is stand back and cheer!!
> Rather than relying on "control," collaborators need to rely on the
> "process." One can only rely upon process if one is engaged in a
> praxis of study, action, and reflection. If academicians utilized
> participatory research methodologies, they could be the facilitators
> of these new pathways, unleashing tremendous potential for
> individuals and communities and engaging communities in this praxis.
"Control" is definitly the enemy of "process" in collaborations. Control
also legitimizes top-down management which is where many of our
"institutions" seem to be stuck. The "Urban Systemic Initiative Program"
must be understood as a process rather than a way to re-package the same
old stuff within the same framework. Constructive change is the key to a
process "jump-start". I voluntarily work with schools and the school board
to help prepare grant proposals which deal with networking infrastructure
for education. However, I constantly see top-down politics (control) stand
in the way of creative potential. No praxis can take place under these
conditions.
> If the goal is to use community networking as a way to maintain the
> institution of education, then maybe we do not need community
> networking.
Education in the purest sense cannot be institutionalized. Yes you are
right our academic towers are indeed trying constantly to package
knowledge that they can "control" and make it "legitimate". What they
never seem to understand fully is that education is a matter of process
not content delivery. Yes academics talk about process, but their student
evaluations rarely consider process. Talk is cheap! If our community
evaluations of research were directed at process rather than
content-outcome, then maybe the academics would follow suit with their
product packaging.
> If the goal is to ensure that every child receives the
> support and guidance needed to develop his/her own talents, gifts,
> skills and agency, then we need to develop relationships and
> structures that support that process. Schools cannot do it alone.
> Communities cannot do it alone. They need each other. They need to
> be equal partners in this rather than adversaries. If each gives up
> "control" and enters into relationships of mutual participation,
> their respective expertise and knowledge can serve the goal of
> helping each child develop.
Schools are not apart from communities no matter how high they build their
"Ivory Towers".
> Such
> partnerships require educators to share power and be willing to see
> themselves in relationships of equal exchange and value with
> community people. Community people need to assume more
> responsibility for leadership in their communities, collaborating
> with other organizations and groups toward the common goal of
> developing each child's portential.
We have a long way to go with this, but there are glimmers of hope. Even
though we have several collaborations with schools, housing, seniors, and
social service groups, there are untapped resources in business which we
have not even started to effectively approach in Memphis. I must confess
that I have always had some reluctance toward approching business interest
relative to community-academic goals. They (business) are on one side, and
we (academics) are on the other. Business cannot do business unless they
are in a stable community. What we are about in NIE can go long way to
help stabelize communities.
> It's
> a process that needs to be described as we are in it.
Once you are out of the interactive environment, much valuable information
is lost from memory. Objective process documentation at every step should
be a requirement for future research. Not just quarterly reports, but
rather a networked daily record of community research activities.
> Participatory research methodologies are necessary to begin to map
> the community neural-pathways, the new patterns of relationship, and
> the material that gets passed through these connections as the
> networking infrastructure develops across institutional, geographical
> and socio-economic boundaries.
Yes, the job of making the connections and simply exploring applications
is not sufficent. New research must gain a better understanding of he
processes related to Computer Mediated Commuications, and how they
function relative to the "public education".
> Rather than thinking top-down and bottom-up, we need to think
> latterally and diagonally, intersections, and parallel patterns. We
> are weaving connections and relationships and need ways to lift these
Progressive business as already discovered the value of latteral
management. How long is it going to be before academics learn that the
same is true of commuinity education?
> We are in the process of expanding our collective intelligence,
> our collective ability to help each child develop his/her potential.
Not just each child, but rather each member of the community. The
expansion of "collective intellegence" takes in all age groups, and all
of the differnt socioeconomic strata.
> These patterns defy institutionalism. The insitutional mind-set will
> continue to chase its own tail while the rest of us weave the cloth.
Well put!
> Is there any NIE project which involves communities which has a
> participatory research methodology integrated into it?
I hope that what we are doing with seniors and the K-12 community at least
partially fits the participatory research model.