Towards+a+CIRN+Framework+for+Ethics,+Diversity,+and+Inclusion

=An Expansive List of Ethics and Diversity Principles & Practice Standards= In his 2005 paper "[|Is Community Informatics Good for Community?]", Randy Stoecker critiqued community informatics as underdeveloped as a field of practice due to the lack of a codified set of ethics and practice standards. Udo Averweg and Susan O'Donnell provided an important " [|Code of Ethics for Community Informatics Researchers]" in 2007. Workshops at the 2013 ([|workshop abstract located here]) and 2014 (workshop abstract, agenda, and notes located here) Community Informatics Research Network (CIRN) conferences have sought to develop an additional set of ethics and practice standards for Community Informatics //__practitioners__,// building from the presentations and conversations occurring at the CIRN conference. In developing this set of social ethical principles, we seek to help guide practitioners as they consider if, when, and how to ethically and sustainably implement technology as part of CI projects. During the workshop at the 2013 CIRN conference, there was consensus that t[|he work of a cohort from the Pluralizing the Archival Curriculum Group (PACG)]might serve as a model to establish such a set of ethics and practice standards for community informatics. The 2014 workshop expanded consideration of various related principles. Represented below are the various comments with regard to these sets of principles.

In creating an expansive list of ethics and diversity principles & practice standards, we hope to inspire explorations applying different items from this list in our CI scholarship over the coming year. We encourage all CI scholars to then join us next fall at the 2015 CIRN conference to continue the dialog by presenting n otes from the field regarding implementation, responses to, and further delineation upon this expansive list. A workshop at the 2015 conference will then use the conversations to inform a narrowed down list that will be submitted for formal publication as a CIRN statement, similar to the PACG working group statement, to be included in a special issue that will also include related papers presented at the conference. The 2014 workshop was comprised of three parts: The review of and comments on model principles and notes from the small and large group discussion are presented below and comprise the core of our expansive list. Revisions to correct or clarify notes from the workshop are solicited until December 6. After that time, please feel encouraged to use the wiki comment feature to add your own comments to this document. =Review of and Comments on Model Principles= The first part of the workshop, participants reviewed posters and printouts of various model principles. Participants were provided with sticky notes and large blank sheets of paper on which to provide comments. Recommendations for alternative sets of principles were also solicited. The following list is broken down by source. Bracketed content highlighted in yellow are comments on or votes favoring a particular bullet point with regard to a CI practitioners statement as provided by workshop participants using sticky notes (see workshop photos for additional details)
 * 1) Review of and comments on model principles
 * 2) Small and large group discussion
 * 3) Consideration of next steps, a summary of which is described in the paragraph above.

Community-Campus Partnership for Health (CCPH) [|Principles of Good Community-Campus Partnerships]
The purpose of the Principles of Good Community-Campus Partnerships is to help clarify terms of engagement and expectations between partners. These principles are not intended to be prescriptive or to be adopted verbatim, but instead to provide a starting point or framework for discussion when forming or periodically reflecting on the progress of our partnerships. We believe the process of discussing the principles of a partnership is at least as important as the adoption of principle themselves. Partnerships are at different stages of development and thus the principles provide guidance along the road towards ideal, authentic relationships. The authenticity of a partnership is likely best determined by the consensus of the members of the partnership itself. If you use the CCPH Principles of Good Community-Campus Partnerships, we'd like feedback on how they were used and in what ways, if any, they were of assistance in your work. Please send your feedback to us by email or by mail: CCPH, UW Box 354809, Seattle, WA 98195-4809
 * Partnerships form to serve a specific purpose and may take on new goals over time. [1 vote; Scope for emergent purposes? -> Risk of chaos ~ risk of exclusion -> Balance?]
 * Partners have agreed upon mission, values, goals, measurable outcomes and accountability for the partnership.
 * The relationship between partners is characterized by mutual trust, respect, genuineness, and commitment. [1 vote]
 * The partnership builds upon identified strengths and assets, but also works to address needs and increase capacity of all partners.
 * The partnership balances power among partners and enables resources among partners to be shared. [1 vote]
 * Partners make clear and open communication an ongoing priority by striving to understand each other's needs and self-interests, and developing a common language.
 * Principles and processes for the partnership are established with the input and agreement of all partners, especially for decision-making and conflict resolution.
 * There is feedback among all stakeholders in the partnership, with the goal of continuously improving the partnership and its outcomes.
 * Partners share the benefits of the partnership's accomplishments.
 * Partnerships can dissolve and need to plan a process for closure.

Colin Rhinesmith and Martin Wolske
CI Studio Principles
 * Knowledge of the world is socially constructed within specific historical and social contexts that are fundamentally mediated by power relations. Facts are always determined by some degree of ideological inscription (Kincheloe and McLaren 2009 p. 304); [3 votes]
 * Theory and praxis must be brought together in dialog to ground transformative, liberative action and reflection in community spaces—an interpretive and critical approach; [What do you mean by "dialogue"? How defined?]
 * Instructors, students, and community partners in the CI Studio must be co-learners and co-creators of knowledge, and should benefit equally from their participation in CI projects; [What do you mean by "co-learners"; Also includes designers and decision makers.]
 * The starting point for any community engagement project must be an asset-based perspective that considers the bundle of resources each participant brings to the project, along with their capability sets allowing the conversion of these resources into valued doings and beings; [I think there is a pervious step: common goals or interest Before talking of a "project", I think there must be a space for defining that project in ways that it responds to something that comes from community]
 * Community-university partnerships should embody a high degree of citizen power, and energy should be intentionally focused on making sure the community gains ultimate control over the decision-making and managerial power (Arnstein 1967 p. 217) in CI projects;
 * People’s everyday experiences with technology are essential gateways for understanding: (a) how oppressive systems in society reinforce existing inequalities, and (b) the role that technology plays in supporting these social processes;
 * Assumptions about technology—and about those who use technology—deeply impact teaching, learning, research, and knowledge creation processes;
 * Power and oppression—whether intentional or unintentional—shape ICTs and thus deliver unequal benefits for different groups in society; [and vice versa]
 * Therefore, great care and ongoing assessments are needed in research, teaching, and practice with community members in order to ensure that (a) engagement does not reinforce existing race, class, and gender inequalities, and (b) to reduce the potential of causing any harm in community settings; [Involves values of community in assessment; Acknowledge: *) Technology as power structure, *) Values {whose?} embedded in technology]
 * Difference must be embraced as a resource (Eubanks 2011 p. 27) and strategy for promoting multiple ways of knowing—or a culture of epistemological pluralism. [1 vote; don't like the word "resource to describe people -- love else idea though]

Anne J. Gilliland and Sue McKemmish

 * Archives will acknowledge both the creators and the co-creators/subjects of records when appraising, describing and making accessible those materials.
 * To the fullest extent possible, archives will consult with the creators and co-creators/subjects of archival materials when appraising materials, developing descriptions and making decisions about access and disclosure. [Can this be resolved through making it possible to "version"?]
 * Archives will strive to identify and implement mechanisms for enhancing the visibility, findability and usability of archival material relating to communities and experiences that have historically been under- or inequitably represented or rendered invisible through archival descriptive practices. [1 vote]
 * Archives will acknowledge and respect the belief systems and traditional [remove the word traditional] cultural expressions of the creators and co-creators/ subjects of archival materials when developing archival descriptions and online access systems. [1 vote]
 * Archives will work to ensure that their appraisal and descriptive practices or access and disclosure processes do not expose or exploit those who are vulnerable to suppression, appropriation, violence, discrimination or other oppressive or traumatising acts, or re-traumatise them. This includes future generations that might be vulnerable on the basis of what is contained in the archives.
 * Any future repository that takes physical, intellectual or virtual control over the holdings or copies of holdings of another repository will abide by the conditions concerning appraisal, description and access that were agreed upon with the creator or donor and other key stakeholders (e.g. co-creators/subjects of the records) when the materials were first acquired, if the creator or donor is no longer alive. Otherwise, it will seek to negotiate with the creator or donor and key stakeholders about what such conditions should be for the materials in question with a default to the protection of the vulnerable individuals.

Additional comments associated with the Gilliland and McKemmish Poster

 * Principles 2 & 4 assume that creation and maintenance of participatory archives is centralized.

Danielle Allard, Greg Bak, Shawna Ferris, and Kiera Ladner
**Lesson 1: Digital is a "value add"** [Should everything be digital?] Digital archives promote access for socially or geographically isolated community members. Digital archives allow for nuanced access controls that reflect community needs and concerns. Information must be managed so the community feels secure in its control of its own information. **Lesson 2: Building relationship time** Planning and project timelines need to account for more than just the process of archiving. Relationship building can take years. **Lesson 3: Sometimes you succeed by not acquiring** Success is achieved when our partners have become archivally aware and made arrangements for the long-term preservation and access of their records...wherever that may be. **Lesson 4: Walking the walk -- the importance of activism** Mutual activism builds trust. Relationships are defined and strengthened through connections as allies and shared activist goals. **Lesson 5: Giving control to the community is the basis for building trust** [1 vote] Communities must control facets of archives that are important to them. Respect for community expertise should be material.

Additional notes associated with Allard, Bak, Ferris, and Ladner poster:
Interventionists must recognise the a-priori power imbalance between them and the community. Everything must follow from acknowledging and redressing this imbalance. Avoid the missionary position! Cui bono? "Supportin Automy" Poste
 * Implications for:
 * Funding models -- Ethical imperative to challenge these regimes
 * Ethics frameworks -- Ethical imperative to challenge these regimes
 * Systems advocacy?

Collaboratively developed by workshop participants
The following were recorded by workshop participants after reviewing the above lists.
 * 1) Research should: [2 votes]


 * Emerge from within [with] communities
 * Leave community deposits on
 * Events
 * Embodied Knowledge
 * 2) Researchers are part of community "invited role within community" Not a power to be negotiated with (If they aren't, they become)
 * 3) Research should be accessible in terms of language (reciprocity with research) [1 vote], distribution channels.
 * 4) Moral issues -- ethics & duty of care. Responsibility. [1 vote]
 * 5) Community Informatics research & practice needs to be flexible enough so that the community can reshape it.
 * 6) CI must embrace "mutual learning" where everyone can learn something from the process
 * 7) Plurality
 * 8) Acknowledgment of incommensurability
 * 9) This is all "text" Should/must that be the way of "communication?" Incorporate orality?
 * 10) Recognise that communities are complex dynamic beasts with their own power structures, changing values, and priorities
 * 11) (Knowledge translation) - transliterate
 * 12) Sociopolitical context - "Profiling" hence addressing local environment issues?? Research for/as decolonization
 * 13) Understanding researcher "brings" change/embodied/links and must find ethical behavior in such setting

** Additional Frameworks **

 * Principles of Kaupapa Māori: []
 * Others?

= Small and large group discussion =

**1st Group**
> --> It has to embody a position on the role of technology and community to distinguish between CI and other fields. > --> All of these points could apply to a union meeting or a community platform where people could articulate their vision. How is this community different? The capacity and power of technology and diffusion of information. Technology can disenfranchise, that is one of the powerful things that is a part of the CI community. Technology is not apolitical.
 * Takeaways: (1) knowledge translation (relevant to the community). (2) Socio-political context, and (3) moral issues, ethics of care.

**2nd Group**
> --> Being transparent, defining roles, how will the process be transparent? > --> Additional: Acknowledgement of the diversity within communities, "othering" needs to be addressed in CI.
 * Takeaways: (1) idea of mutual respect (is that the right word?), romanticism of communities, communities are not homogeneous, (2) partnership: is this the right word? Collaboration might be a better term to be more equal and address power issues. (3) researchers defining agenda? Shift power relations to make sure that communities are defining the relationships

**3rd Group**

 * Takeaways (1) What are communities anyways? People belong to overlapping communities. Communities themselves are multivariate, (2) We need to be open to being transformed by the experiences of doing the research, as well as communities, partners however they are defined. Need to be open to transformation process. This leads to discussion of partnerships and how people work together. How do we work with communities who have been oppressed in their experiences working with researchers/academics. How do we build trust? Organic community formation could be a pathway towards trust building, (3) recognizing power relations (and differences between power), acknowledge terms like Community Informatics and the blind spots within them. Terminology is determined by academics. How do we address this within the communities with whom we are working. Possible solution: writing principles in numerous languages to address these disparities.

**Follow-up Conversation**

 * This will take time to develop
 * How can community "partners" inform the direction of these guidelines/partnerships?
 * There needs to be a transformation within the university to accommodate and respect our students' backgrounds and traditions.
 * There will always be power relations and we need practices to equalize these relationships.
 * Need: stating social justice principles more explicitly in CI.
 * There is a real need to de-colonialize our work. This is a process, not an end.
 * We should produce a reflective document, not a final document.