- make the community aware of the existence of choice
- help the community to gain a sense of choice
- foster the effective use of choice with community members
- recognize and report on the achievement of choice as it unfolds
We need to be careful about how the term "choice" is intended in this context, however. Rather than taking it exclusively to mean "rational choice" in an individualistic sense, the intent is more aligned with social practice theory with an emphasis on "configurations of elements" that together form practices that can evolve over time.
As such, we need to make some distinctions between the ABC method of policy intervention and the practice-oriented intervention of the technology steward.
The normative basis of the development theory behind technology stewardship comes from the Capability Approach. As such, the goal of development projects is to foster social change that supports human capabilities through achieved functioning. We can narrow the scope in the tech stewardship role to that of "informational capabilities." As such, the goal of enhanced "choice" is not directed to a pre-determined choice but instead the objective of choice itself (Kleine).
The unit of analysis is the configuration of elements in social practice and the individual and community relationship to that configuration. The theory of change is process-based, recognizing that action and structure are interrelated and that change is expressed as a reconfiguration of elements of materials, competence, and meaning. This contrasts with the ABC (positivistic) approach that views change through fixed variables in a causal relationship.
The implication for what Shove calls the "positioning policy" is to emphasize agile methods over waterfall methods. In other words, small incremental change with frequent evaluation is preferred because it permits adjustment and reconfiguration as elements undergo change through action.
The other implication is for expectation of results. Rather than set a universal standard or goal for all communities of practice, this approach emphasizes locally contingent outcomes that respect context, history, and the influence of other social practices.
This approach may be difficult for some stakeholders to appreciate. It may even cause some to oppose it because of the possibility that some communities of practice may choose to reject digital technology outright, or more likely will incorporate it into configurations of practice that do not align neatly with more centrally guided policy visions or intended outcomes. In the long run, however, the question is about the self-determination and well being of a community of practice, and while ICT will play a role, that role is up to the community members to decide for themselves.
