The operational challenge is partly related to the difficulty in measuring capabilities and therefore studies will sometimes look to outcome components (achieved functionings) as a proxy for capabilities (p. 29). This can, in turn, result in a reduction in complexity that qualitative designs and methods may be better positioned to capture around how individual and collective choice are shaped in practice. Kleine's own research design included in-depth interviews to "inquire into the kind of life they [the participants] wanted to live, which can be seen as an aggregate of different capabilities" (p. 29). She then employed a "media usage analysis" method intended to identify achieved functionings in relation to expressed capabilities (p. 29).
The Technology Stewardship Field School model adopts a similar two-part qualitative approach to distinguish between capabilities and achieved functionings. Training begins with a community engagement session in which participants working in small groups create a problem & opportunity tree analysis for an identified community of practice. [expand briefly on this method]. While the problem tree step identifies deficiencies or areas of concern, the opportunity tree exercise suggests capabilities that the participants feel are desirable in order to achieve a specific outcome for the COP.
[For example ...]
Group members are then asked to identify a capability from the opportunity tree ("we would like to be able to do ...") and to express it in a campaign objective, which serves as an aspirational statement of an achieved functioning. In order to take this significant and sometimes difficult conceptual step, participants are introduced to a framework in which they are asked to consider how that capability relates to various communicative actions/strategies [informational capabilities] based on six primary community orientations. Wenger defines these as ....
[In the LKA and TT cases, for example ...]
On the one hand, "choice" is first introduced at this point in the process insofar as members of the COP are invited to discuss, debate, and ultimately select a priority from the opportunity tree as the basis for setting a campaign objective. Choice is an expression of the collective interests and priorities of the COP as they agree upon on a priority using the community orientation framework.
It is important to note that the campaign objective does not mention a specific ICT solution at this point in the process. It is a means by which to relate a defined outcome (functioning) to an informational capability. ICT is therefore positioned as a conversion factor in relation to the campaign objective [see Haenssgen & Ariana, 2018].
On the other hand, the next step in the process is choosing an appropriate ICT platform or tool for the campaign. Haenssgen & Ariana (2018, p.103) suggest that when serving as a conversation factor within CA, the transformative qualities of an ICT are not intrinsic but "assigned to it within the socio-technical context" (p. 103). In other words, the potential of ICT as a conversion factor results from its successful integration into the social practice(s) of the COP ("effective use" enhances informational capabilities"). The tech steward plays a key role in this facilitation process by engendering an awareness of choice and a sense of choice with members of the COP with respect to selecting an appropriate ICT.
Kleine recognizes the difficulties with accounting for power relations in the CA, particularly with respect to "how individuals negotiate structures such as access to resources" when that requires "some redistribution of power" in order for choice to be enacted (p. 31). Her conceptualization of "choice" draws from empowerment perspectives rooted in gender studies and community participation (2013, p. 34), which provides a means of "anchoring the dialectic between individual and collective choice along with the political concern about power within the framework" (p. 34). Following from this, her conceptualization takes on a specific meaning:
Choice not in an apolitical or consumerist sense, but as a field of contestation, is at the centre of the choice framework. It represents a crystallization of power relations in people's lives, reflecting their relative freedom or unfreedom. (p. 34)Elaborating on this notion, Kleine adapts Alsop & Heinsohn's (2005) notion of "degrees of empowerment" to specify different forms of agency in relation to an opportunity structure: choices available; choices a person makes; and their effectiveness (p. 33). Kleine adds another degree of empowerment to address the problem of "adaptive preferences" that involve self-censored choices linked to social norms and discourses, as well as "psychological resources" like self-confidence and "ability to envision" (p. 33). She refers to this as the "sense of choice" dimension, which may be influenced by "intangible power relations that must not be ignored" (p. 34).
Kleine mentions the value of open-ended exploratory research with CA and the choice framework because of the difficulty of establishing clearly defined impact measures (p. 35). However, within the context of the Choice Framework the use of choice and achievement of choice both represent opportunities for assessing impact as it relates to enhanced informational capabilities.
--expand on use of choice and achievement as it relates to Kleine's framework, TSFS and the case studies.
A further complicating factor in defining impact measures is closely related to the central tenet of CA and the Choice Framework itself, which values self-determination and "choice itself" as the primary normative outcomes of development (see Kleine, 2013, p. 44). The multifunctional nature of digital ICTs and the diverse range of applications and uses to which they can be put complicates this further. For instance, Kleine acknowledges that we need "to recognize that some people will value a life that is free of certain technologies while others will desire technologies' usage" (p. 38). This raises the problem of reconciling individual and collective choice within a community of practice: some members may be keen adopters of a digital ICT platform or service, while others may be resisters or may simply decide to choose different means of achieving similar ends. As Kleine puts it, the "social norms of technology usage are not a force of nature but instead are created by humans, and thus mechanisms can be found to discuss, negotiate, and agree on them" (p. 39).
The TSFS model recognizes this inherent tension and trains participants in a process that involves community engagement, agile deployment through rapid prototyping, and evaluation. The process serves as "a mechanism" to facilitate discussion and negotiation in relation to the social norms of technology usage among members of the community of practice. Use of choice
