To clarify terminology: Technology stewardship refers to a role introduced within the communities of practice literature. Tech stewards help to create and maintain a digital habitat for their community of practice. JETI, the Joint Education and Training Initiative refers to the technology stewardship training program developed as part of a participatory action research project. The research project is focused on the study of community-based leadership with digital media and technology.
It looks something like this:
The overall structure is important because it circumscribes and defines the scope for the application of the Capability Approach. At the level of the JETI, the CA is perhaps best implemented as a normative-evaluative framework to assess the contribution of technology stewardship training within specific communities of practice. So far, the project has focussed exclusively on agricultural extension and rural development in two countries, but other domains of practice could be included under the JETI (and, hopefully, will be in the future). The contribution at this level is applied, measured by short terms results in technology-related practices.
At the level of the research project and in relation to the wider ICT4D field, the Capability Approach is then applied to inform a normative-theoretical perspective on community-based leadership with digital media and technology. Here, the focus is on documenting and analyzing leadership behaviours and beliefs as they contribute to (or detract from) informational capabilities vis-a-vis human development goals more generally.
Robeyns (2017, p. 29) reminds us that the Capability Approach is "an open-ended and underspecified framework." As a result, it offers considerable flexibility in its application but also demands careful and clear thinking conceptually in its application. She proposes that capability approach be reserved as an umbrella term, and that we employ capability theory, capability analysis, capability account, or capability application when using it for a specific purpose.
Given that technology plays a key role in all dimensions of this project, it is necessary to come to terms with it in relation to how the Capability Approach is being applied at the level of the JETI and in the wider context on community-based leadership. I think for now, and following Robeyns' suggested nomenclature, I prefer the term CA-based account or model of technology stewardship, although CA continues to be widely used in related ICT4D studies.
Technology, as Haensggen & Ariana (2018) point out, has been introduced into CA-based models in various ways and with differing implications. On the one hand, it can be viewed strictly as an "input" in the sense of it serving as a generative source for creating capabilities (a mobile phone enhances mobility). On the other hand, it can be transformative in the sense that technology is applied to other types of inputs as raw materials in order for them to become the basis for capabilities (e.g., a computer renders electricity into symbolic information). The decision on how to account for technology within a CA-based model is an important ontological question that may have significant implications for guiding research efforts, evaluating outcomes, and setting policy.
Robeyns' modular method for specifying CA-based models includes "meta-theoretical commitments" (module B7) as well as an optional provision for including additional ontological and explanatory theories (module C1). In turn, these additional theories "may have effects on various other elements or dimensions of the capability [account] that are being constructed" (2017, p. 68). As such, the term "technology" requires careful consideration when introduced into a CA-based model. The technology-augmented Capability Approach (TaCA) described by Haensggen & Ariana (2018) introduces "the categories of technical objects and technological conversion factors as additional elements that had hitherto been disregarded [in CA-based accounts]." In effect, these categories represent an ontological statement about the "dual nature" of technology:
All objects serve as inputs if they carry characteristics required for attaining valued capabilities. What makes technical objects special from a capability perspective is their transformative nature, thereby modifying the characteristics of other inputs in the same way that conversion factors do. Technical objects like phones or roads can have these two natures at the same time. (Haenssgen & Ariana, 2018, p. 104)
This ontological duality is an effort by Haenssgen & Ariana to reconcile and "harmonize" various underlying notions of how technology is conceptualized within CA-based accounts and "a justification for the explicit inclusion" of technology within CA more generally (p. 99).
The ontological and explanatory theories may hinge in large part on the meta-theoretical commitment one ascribes to CA-based model. For example, a technological determinist account of technological impact would emphasize the formal properties (affordances) of technological objects or systems as conversion factors. In this account, "inputs" would more likely be taken as raw materials transformed by technology.
A social constructivist account of technological impact, on the other hand, would be more likely to view social, economic and political structures as conversion factors, relegating technology as an input that is variable in form but subject to conversion factors.
A social shaping perspective, such as Actor Network Theory, would offer a third meta-theoretical commitment emphasizing a "relational ontology" [find source] located in the relationships and flows established between human and non-human actors. This account may be most closely aligned with the "dual nature" of technology posited by Haenssgen & Ariana insofar as it encompasses technology as an assemblage that establishes capabilities through a configuration of inputs and conversation factors.
With respect to CA, Robeyns (2017) stresses "that we should always be clear, when valuing something, whether we value it as an end in itself, or as a means to a valuable end" (p. 47). Clearly, this would apply in the case of technology and, in so doing, this imperative may help to more clearly establish its role within a specific CA-based model.
With the normative-evaluative application of CA to the JETI and technology stewardship training, my thinking right now would be that the achieved functioning (ends) is represented by the digital habitat of a community of practice. Digital tools and platforms are inputs. The process leading up to the campaign plan is represented as a conversion factor. Capabilities (means) are informational capabilities related to the campaign goal. Choice and agency represent the response to the campaign by members of the community of practice.
[A useful discussion of difference between capacity, capability, and performance is here: https://www.abyrint.com/capacity-capability-performance/], but here is a brief attempt to clarify:
Behavioural sciences distinguish between these terms in relation to context: capacity refers to what a person can do in a standardized, controlled environment; capability refers to what a person can do in his or her daily environment; and performance refers to what the person actually does in his or her daily environment. High capacity may be correlated with higher capability; however, two people that demonstrate similar capacity in a controlled context may perform differently in everyday practice, thereby exhibiting unique individual capabilities.
Capability is distinct inasmuch as it relates to everyday practice, or for CA, the distinction can establish an important logical relationship between capacity as a general set of resources (inputs), capability as specific attributes at an individual level, and performance as social practice. In Kleine's choice framework capacity is partly related to awareness choice; capability is sense of choice; and performance is use and achievement of choice.
Performance is analogous to achieved functioning and refers to what the community members actually do in their daily environment. The digital habitat is therefore represented as a (set of) social practices.
The CA is typically represented with the elements in a configuration similar to the one here:
However, we can also map these elements to a logic model format typically used in evaluation research and practice (Center for Community Health and Development, 2020). Also referred to as "a theory of change," the logic model is a type of outcome map,
... a visual diagram that depicts relationships between initiative strategies and intended results. These results will include both short- and longer-term outcomes and may also reflect changes at different levels, such as individuals, organizations, systems and communities. (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2004)
I would suggest a logic model might provide a more practical framework for specifying technology stewardship as a form of change leadership that aligns with the Capability Approach:
Wenger, White & Smith (2009) introduce the term digital habitat and initially define it as "the portion of a community's habitat that is enabled by a configuration of technologies." The choice of habitat as a metaphor lends itself to a systems-based perspective that encompasses relationships, boundaries, and adaptation. As such, we can say that communities of practice inhabit spaces "where members experience togetherness" and which are increasingly complemented or created by digital technologies and, therefore,
... a digital habitat is not just a configuration of technologies, but a dynamic, mutually-defining relationship that depends on the learning of the community. It reflects the practices that members have developed to take advantage of the technology available and thus experience this technology as a "place" for community. A digital habitat is first and foremost an experience of place enabled by technology." [emph. added] (Wenger, White & Smith, 2009, p. 38)
Further extending the metaphor, communities of practice can be said to "cultivate" a digital habitat. Cultivation is a term that evokes an ongoing process, attention to detail, and a caring ethic. One specific definition associates the figurative sense of cultivate with refine, defining it as action "to improve by labor, care, or study" (Merriam-Webster). To cultivate a digital habitat involves paying attention to technology and its affordances as well as the "practice aspects" entailed in the configuration of technologies for specific ends. The technology steward plays a central role in the cultivation of the digital habitat.
When relating technology stewardship training to the wider policy context for digital agriculture, the digital habitat changes its role within the CA-based model and is specified instead as a conversion factor that enables other types of inputs to form the basis for capabilities with the community of practice. For instance, a digital habitat that supports effective social networking potentially acts as a conversion factor between expert knowledge (input) and local awareness of organic farming methods (capability) resulting in a rise in household income and improved health in the community (achieved functionings). This shift in perspective helps to specify the transformative role of ICT as digital habitat while maintaining a clear distinction between other types of farming technologies, agricultural techniques, or resources acting as inputs.
In sum, the meta-theoretical commitment to this TaCA model draws from social shaping of technology perspectives that recognize the dual nature of technology in both its generative and transformative aspects; however, I am suggesting here that the role of technology will vary according to the context within which the TaCA is being considered. In this case, it is also important to note we are focussing exclusively on information and communication technology (ICT). At the level of the technology stewardship training program within the JETI, the TaCA provides a normative-evaluative framework; in other words, it is applied to inform two key research questions:
- What should the technology stewardship training program aim to achieve?
- How well is it achieving that aim?
Overlaying the core elements of CA on a logic model suggests that ICT is perhaps best conceived of in its generative role as an input with the campaign plan serving as a conversion factor fostering informational capabilities in the short term, with the long term goal of cultivating a digital habitat for the community of practice. Choice and agency are positioned as medium-term outcomes inasmuch as they mediate between informational capabilities and the particular digital habitat of a community of practice. (It is important to note too that "choice" is expressed along a spectrum of empowerment in Kleine's framework).
Specifying the TaCA at this level of detail has implications for research design. When conducting multiple case studies with embedded units of analysis, this TaCA model suggests we need to consider:
- the technology acquisition strategy (input)
- campaign leadership (conversion factors)
- campaign outcomes (short-term: demonstrated informational capabilities)
- community choice (medium-term: expressed preferences for ICT use)
- digital habitat (long-term: ICT-enhanced social practices as achieved functioning)
In terms of research design, this level of specification suggests some important considerations:
- Do we wish to control for tech acquisition strategy between campaigns? (e.g., limit campaigns to certain types of tools or platforms?)
- How much support do we provide to tech stewards in the field during the campaign phase?
- With respect to campaign outcome, what is the balance of consideration we give to narrative accounts from the tech steward versus those provided by community members?
- How do we assess informational capabilities? (as individual or group?)
- How do we assess choice and agency? (presumably, we can use Kleine's empowerment model to assist)
- How do we assess digital habitat? What is a reasonable time frame for "long-term outcomes"?
Again, these are questions and considerations for the JETI-level study, with TaCA applied as a normative-evaluative framework to examine the role of each tech steward in relation to the digital habitat of his or her own community of practice.
By doing multiple case studies with several COPs, we hope to be able to better understand technology stewardship as a conversion factor within our TaCA model. By doing comparative research we hope to gain insights into community-based leadership with digital media and technology as part of our larger participatory action research (PAR) project. Key research questions at this level of analysis include:
- What is the role of community-based leadership in fostering effective use of digital media and technology?
- What forms does this kind of leadership take, and what does it entail in different contexts?
- What role does gender play in different settings?
- How do we identify and assess effective use in practice?
- What contribution can community-university collaborations make to develop leadership practice through training programs, postsecondary education, and related research activities?
- How can students benefit from these initiatives?
- Who are the stakeholders that must be engaged to support a sustained effort in facilitating community-based leadership in digital media and technology beyond the life of this research project?
In order to understand the wider contribution of the JETI and the PAR project to the ICT4D field and the phenomenon of digital transformation requires a subtle but significant shift in the TaCA model. Within this wider context, the TaCA serves in a normative-theoretical role, with the digital habitat positioned as a conversion factor rather than an achieved outcome. The digital habitat is now subsumed as one aspect within a much wider set of considerations related to human development policy and practice.
The primary concern at this level is not with ICT per se, but rather how particular configurations of ICT-enabled social practices (the digital habitat) play a transformative role "in a dialectical relationship with other conversion factors" (Haenssgen & Ariana, 2018, p. 104), leading to capabilities and achieved functionings of the population in relation to "individual well-being and social arrangements, the design of policies, and proposals about social change" (Robeyns, 2006, p. 352). Or, "the effective opportunities that people have to lead the lives they have reason to value" (p. 351). Clearly, technology is not an end in itself. The digital habitat is one conversion factor among others that, together, help to establish means to achieve the development goal of enhancing human freedom.
Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2004). Theory of Change: A Practical Tool For Action, Results and Learning Retrieved from Baltimore, MD: https://www.aecf.org/resources/theory-of-change/
Center for Community Health and Development. (2020). Community Tool Box: Developing a Logic Model or Theory of Change. University of Kansas. Available: https://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/overview/models-for-community-health-and-development/logic-model-development/main
Haenssgen, M. J., & Ariana, P. (2018). The place of technology in the Capability Approach. Oxford Development Studies, 46(1), 98-112. doi:10.1080/13600818.2017.1325456 https://doi.org/10.1080/13600818.2017.1325456
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Cultivate. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved August 4, 2020, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cultivate
Robeyns, I. (2006). The Capability Approach in Practice*. Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(3), 351-376. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2006.00263.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2006.00263.x
Robeyns, I. (2017). Wellbeing, Freedom and Social Justice: The Capability Approach Re-Examined. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers.
Wenger, E., White, N., & Smith, J. D. (2009). Digital Habitats: Stewarding Technology for Communities. Portland: CPSquare.
