Nicholas Carl Martin - My Blog

Last Wednesday, Ashoka delivered a terrific panel conversation at the World Bank called, Public Goods through Social Enterprises: Creating Hybrid Value Chains. Bill Drayton and Valeria Budinich spearheaded the discussion with their thoughts on the growing impact of hybrid value chains, full economic citizenship, and the inevitability of a changemaker world. I had three take-aways that I will consider under the current framework of technology.

First, Bill Drayton gave a statistic that blew me away and I had to Google it to make sure I heard it right: “Over half of the Ashoka fellows have changed national policy within five years.” There are over two thousand fellows worldwide, so you can imagine how many countries have gone through some sort of systemic change thanks to the influence of these individuals. But according to Mr. Drayton, the social entrepreneur is only successful when he has caused a movement within his community. Ashoka measures impact with specific large-scale variables. First they look at the original vision of the social entrepreneur, second, how well they scale the model and inspire others to replicate it, third, how their influence has caused a policy change, and fourth, how their model has promoted leadership building. This simple, yet impressive set of indicators demonstrates that Ashoka’s mission is to create entirely new systems and markets, rather than trying to fix broken models.

Second, patterns and systems are only valid if they are in the best interest of the citizen sector. Mr. Drayton explained that if a production and distribution system fails, then it fails for a reason and needs to be redesigned. This reminds me of a great TED talk by Seth Godin, where he makes the point that we shouldn’t allow broken ideas to perpetuate. I tweeted a question to the panel that ended up getting a laugh because it reflected the crux of the funding challenge for social entrepreneurs. I asked,

Mr. Drayton replied that the foundation model is a failure, it is inherently self-interested and in most cases will not allow social entrepreneurs the freedom necessary to follow the changemaker model. “It is only a eighty to ninety year-old system,” he quipped, “it isn’t too old to change.”

My third take-away was the need to create teams for social and economic change, which is the essence of the Hybrid Value Chain model. In the article, “A New Alliance For Global Change,” that was published in Harvard Business Review, Drayton and Budinich define the HVC as the joining of for-profit business with the citizen sector to “make global economies and create lasting social change. Businesses offer scale, expertise in operations, and financing. Social entrepreneurs offer low costs, strong social networks, and a deeper understanding of customers and communities.” This partnership of the private and citizen sectors is able to yield financial and social returns but also do so in such an effective way that the entire system of business is changed. Teams of social entrepreneurs from different backgrounds are necessary to create these hybrid partnerships and are increasingly doing so around the world. Bill Drayton poignantly asked,  “How many people know that we are turning into a changemaker world?”

Source: Ashoka

All these issues are important to take into account when applying a tech lens of innovation. Technologists are creating systems that change people’s lives through new mobile phone tools, social media and networking, mapping technology, and environmental advocacy to name a few. Due to the exponential speed that new technology is produced, there are many opportunities to innovate broken systems. Social entrepreneurs need tech tools to be able to leverage a community and create a movement. I believe that much of the tech world realizes that it is part of a changemaker world—one that is democratic, participatory and allows individuals to achieve full economic citizenship.

Technological innovation has largely been developed for commercialization and fitting the needs of business, entertainment, and government. Now with the onset of HVC into the tech sector there are companies that have sprouted over the last few years that have combined the business and citizen sector to produce something mutually beneficial. We teach about many of them in our courses like FrontlineSMS, Ushahidi, Medic Mobile, and FreedomFone. Microfinance failed to be able to give access to entrepreneurs in the most rural areas and MPesa was able to solve it. What do you think the future of HVC will be in the tech sector? Are technologists going to be more socially minded as they see the growing impact that they can make? Is the citizen sector going to become more tech savvy so that they can create the programs and products that they need? Do you think we’ll get to a point where all business will have to have a changemaking social impact to be successful in the future? Please comment your thoughts!

Mark Your Calendar! AshokaU and TechChange will be holding a twitter chat on: How will technological innovation and social entrepreneurship transform higher education? on June 17th from 1-2pm.  Stay tuned for more details.

How can digital activists harness new technologies, tools, and platforms to be as effective as possible in their work?

Digital organizing has arguably been at the heart of the recent protests in the Arab world. In the case of Egypt, a successful campaign run by online activists contributed to bringing hundreds of thousands of people to protest and force the resignation of President Mubarak. Clay Shirky, author of Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations, wrote: “We are living in the middle of the largest increase in expressive capability in the history of the human race. More people can communicate more things to more people than has ever been possible in the past, and the size and speed of this increase… makes the change unprecedented.” We can expect that any issue worth demonstrating about in the future will be organized online and its success will weigh heavily on how well the Internet and other technological tools are leveraged.

Last week Movements.org released a new strategy guide for its constituents in How to Build and Sustain a 21^st Century Movement. In the fall TechChange will offer an online certificate course entitled Global Innovations for Digital Organizing: New Media Tactics for Democratic Change.

In an effort to help shape these activities, TechChange will be joining forces with Movements.org on Friday, June 3 from 1-2pm EST for a live Twitter chat. Our two organizations are eager to hear your ideas, examples, and questions about the current state of the field and what we can expect in the years to come. Below are some questions we are particularly interested in:

Questions:

• What are the most useful digital tools and platforms available to online organizers today?

• What are some of the biggest barriers preventing these tools from being as effective as they can be in a given context?

• What are the most significant unmet needs that digital activists have today?

• How will digital organizing change over the course of the next 5, 10, 15, 20 years?

Hashtag: #do11 (digital organizing)

Be sure to participate in the chat by logging on twitter on June 3rd between 1 and 2pm EST. Please remember: use the #do11 hashtag, (short for digital organizing 2011), introduce yourself, stay on topic, be respectful and have fun.

Have a question but can’t attend the chat?

Mention @AYM and/or @TechChange before the chat with any questions you have or issues you are interested in exploring – or just comment right here on TechChange Blog. We’ll do our best to include this feedback in the chat.

Sample Tweet:

Join @AYM & @TechChange for a twitter chat on the future of digital organizing #do11 (Jun 3rd 1-2pm) (add link to this blog post)

Tweet you later!

The TechChange Team

This is the second post in a two part series on this topic. The first installment was written by TJ earlier in the week.

The Exchange 2.0 conference at the U.S. Institute of Peace on 4/27 offered a stimulating discussion that centered on using new technologies to further cross-cultural learning. While it was clearly conveyed that face-to-face study abroad programs are one of the best vehicles for promoting cross-cultural understanding, the reality is that many people (especially more disadvantaged students) may never have these opportunities. In an era when American young people need to know more than ever about our world and the people in it, the best estimate is that less than 2 percent of Americans enrolled in higher education participate in study abroad programs. Even then, the majority go to Europe.

In view of these realities, the question that a number of panelists addressed was how technology-enabled international exchange could be improved, used to support existing programs, scaled up, and leveraged to foster meaningful dialogue and learning across cultures. Panelists included representatives from Soliya’s Connect Program, iEarn, and the Global Nomads Group–all of whom shared information (and videos) about the inspiring work they are doing. There are plenty of barriers, however. Lack of institutional capacity, language, and the digital divide remain three.

My question to one of the panels was whether and how mobile phones could be used to advance this work. Having just returned from a Rotary Peace Fellowship, where I had the chance to visit rural communities in both Thailand and Nepal, I was made very aware of the complete lack of Internet access in these villages. However, even people in the most remote communities had mobile phones. There are some amazing things being done with mobile phones and economic development, but what about cultural and social development?  Is it possible, or is it even a good idea?

As Shamil Idriss from Soliya’s Connect Program wisely pointed out, dialogues between diverse communities require trained facilitators, or more polarization (vs. connections) can occur. Countering stereotypes (critical work in our world) also requires a human element and the building of relationships. Finally, SMS messages aren’t known for their depth. I couldn’t agree more with all of these points and maybe these technologies aren’t the best vehicle for this important work. Then again, I still wonder what small steps might be taken to use these technologies to lay the foundation … at least until more comprehensive programs can be put in place?

Here’s one crazy idea: Using mobile phones (or, better yet, Skype-enable Smart Phones with Google Translate functions!) to develop games or activities where young users get points (and awards) for  learning about “the other” and finding common ground. It’s not deep dialogue or an exchange program, but could be one small step toward broadening horizons. Something like this may already exist and I’m sure there are lots of other novel ideas, but I’m not sure there is a place to exchange these. I suspect that many groups operating in this field are in their own silos, but perhaps that is changing.

So, where does this work go forward? Some ideas that emerged from Exchange 2.0 were to form a public-private partnership to bring together practitioners working in this domain, the formation of a consortium focusing on online facilitated engagement, and the development of pilot projects. To be continued?

This is part one of a two part series on Exchange 2.0.

Even though I never had the chance to do a study abroad, for ten years of my life I had over 150 international students live in my house, which practically made up for it. They all came to learn English, but after sharing a dinner table, a bathroom, and a TV with them I learned quite a lot about their culture too. My family noticed after a few years that the amount of students that would come from each country would fluctuate depending on their nation’s economic health. Now with highly accessible online interaction, a new type of youth exchange program has formed that isn’t dependent upon travel and accepts exponential amounts of students— it’s called Exchange 2.0.

Judith McHale coined the United States Institute of Peace Exchange 2.0 event in these words, “Exchange 2.0 is not a replacement for the tried and true methods of exchange, it’s a complement rather than a competitor.” Sixty percent of the world’s population is under thirty-years old. They are not only the primary activists of the communication movement, but they will be “the drivers of change in the coming decade.” The event explored structured methods that organizations, businesses, and governments are combining social media technology with education, because without a structured interaction, as Ambassador Adam Ereli warned, contention can still grow in conversations without moderators.

The conference highlighted some very innovative organizations and the way that they are leading the Exchange 2.0 pack. First, iEARN, which celebrated its twentieth anniversary not long ago, collaborates over 30,000 schools in over 130 countries to help students work on projects with each other. Forums and conference calls are set up between classes from different countries to build relationships, understanding of cultures, and increase tolerance. For example, one school in Redwood City, California and another in Karachi, Pakistan discussed in a Skype conference call how they can be producers of news and media rather than just consumers. Second, Global Nomads Group links school curricula with video conferencing with individuals that have been affected by important world events and where students are facilitated in discussions about international issues.  We watched a video of a classroom of students talking with Rwandan genocide survivors to be able to develop a personal understanding of the tragedy that occurred. Another classroom of students of Katrina survivors video conferenced with a classroom of Haiti earthquake survivors and they got to share how they each overcame challenges. Third, Soliya has partnered with the United Nations to connect and train university students on conflict resolution and leadership skills that are used in the video conferencing Connect Program. Their aim is to increase peace and tolerance between the West and Arab regions by engaging the youth in these chat-room type discussions that supplement their university education. We watched a video of about ten students, each appearing to be from a different country, all discussing the role of religion in their countries. By the end of the video conversation, many students were commenting to the effect of, “Ohhh, that’s what Christianity means in your country. I wish I talked to you about this a long time ago!”

Source: www.soliya.net

These three programs show how online discussions, when done right, establish empathy across international borders in a way that has never been done before. Now practically all students of all ages and economic backgrounds can develop relationships with one another, which adds up to a lot more peace in the future.

The social capital that Exchange 2.0 can generate is astounding. Now you can be trained to be a leader right from an Internet café screen. Within the next two to three months, noted Ambassador Ereli, a new country will be born in the Sudanese region. It won’t have roads, but it will have cell phone towers. People will be able to organize more effectively than ever and with growing cultural understanding, they will be able to do so more peacefully than ever.

I remain with two concerns about Exchange 2.0. As I quoted in the beginning, digital intercultural conversation is meant to be a complement not a replacement to face-to-face interaction. But for most of the world that doesn’t have the means to travel, this will be the only option that they have. It won’t be a complement nor a replacement, it will just be the only way that they develop relationships with others across borders. Even though it is incredibly cost effective in terms of audience reach, how can we ensure that these relationships go deep enough that they actually change behavior? One way that was discussed in the event was to start off students at a young age and assimilate them into an intercultural world. Also, we will need much more investment and innovation from the public and private sectors so Exchange 2.0 can not only be truly universal, but somehow foster meaningful relationships. And secondly, if the exchange of information is going to be increasingly easy, what messages do we want to be sending to other nations? Collective actions studies have shown that the Internet can get entire groups of people to act in a certain way, even if many of the individuals within the group disagree with the behavior. While I don’t think Exchange 2.0 will lead to a homogenization of culture, I do believe that we want to be sure we are promoting the right messages, because as Judith McHale said, “we are all citizen ambassadors.”

Did you attend Exchange 2.0? What impressions did you come away with? How do you think Exchange 2.0 will play a role in foreign relations building in the future?

If you’re interested in learning more about Exchange 2.0, take a look at UPEACE’s class, New Technologies for Educational Practice that starts July 4th in Costa Rica.