Editing Community informatics (section)

== Criticisms ==
There is a tension between the practice and research ends of the field. To some extent this reflects the gap, familiar from other disciplines such as [[community development]], [[community organizing]] and community based research.<ref>Stoecker, R. (2005). Research methods for community change : a project-based approach. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.</ref> In addition, the difficulty that Information Systems has in recognising the qualitative dimension of technology research means that the kind of approach taken by supporters of community informatics is difficult to justify to a positive field oriented towards solutions of technical, rather than social problems. This is a difficulty also seen in the relationship between strict technology research and management research.<ref name="Orlikowski"/> Problems in conceptualising and evaluating complex social interventions relying on a technical base are familiar from [[community health]] and [[community education]]. There are long-standing debates about the desire for accountable – especially ''quantifiable'' and outcome-focused social development, typically practised by government or supported by foundations, and the more participatory, qualitatively rich, process-driven priorities of grass-roots community activists, familiar from theorists such as [[Paulo Freire]], or [[John Dewey#Deweyan pragmatism|Deweyan pragmatism]].<ref>{{cite journal |url=https://openjournals.uwaterloo.ca/index.php/JoCI/article/view/3279 |title=Contributions of Paulo Freire for a Critical Data Literacy: a Popular Education Approach |author1=Alan Freihof Tygel |author2=Rosanna Kirsch |journal=The Journal of Community Informatics |volume=12 |issue=3 |date=2016 |access-date=November 6, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |url=https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bult.2005.1720310603 |title=Community informatics: Integration action, research and learning |journal=Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology |author1=Ann Peterson Bishop |author2=Bertram Bruce |date=October 18, 2006 |volume=31 |issue=6 |pages=6–10 |doi=10.1002/bult.2005.1720310603 |access-date=November 6, 2022|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

Some of the theoretical and practical tensions are also familiar from such disciplines as [[program evaluation]] and social policy, and perhaps paradoxically, Management Information Systems, where there is continual debate over the relative virtue and values of different forms of research and action, spread around different understandings of the virtues or otherwise of allegedly "scientific" or "value-free" activity (frequently associated with "responsible"  and deterministic public policy philosophies), and contrasted with more interpretive and process driven viewpoints in bottom-up or practice driven activity.  Community informatics would in fact probably benefit from closer knowledge of, and relationship to, theorists, practitioners, and evaluators of rigorous [[qualitative research]] and practice.

A further concern is the potential for practice to be "hijacked" by policy or academic agendas, rather than being driven by community goals, both in developed and developing countries. The ethics of technology intervention in indigenous or other communities has not been sufficiently explored, even though ICTs are increasingly looked upon as an important tool for social and economic development in such communities.<ref>Stillman, L. and B. Craig (2006). Incorporating Indigenous World Views in Community Informatics. OTM Workshops 2006, LNCS 4277. Montpellier, France, Springer Berlin / Heidelberg: 237-246.
</ref> Moreover, neither explicit theoretical positions nor ideological positioning has yet emerged.  Many projects appear to have developed with no particular disciplinary affiliation, arising more directly from policy or practice imperatives to 'do something' with technology as funding opportunities arise or as those at the grassroots (or working with the grassroots) identify ICT as possible resources to respond to local issues, problems or opportunities. The papers and documented outcomes (as questions or issues for further research or elaboration) on the [https://web.archive.org/web/20070105200350/http://ccnr.webstylus.net/wiki/ wiki of the October 2006 Prato conference] demonstrate that many of the social, rather than technical issues are key questions of concern to any practitioner in community settings: how to bring about change; the nature of authentic or manufactured community; ethical frameworks; or the politics of community research.

A different strain of critique has emerged from gender studies. Some theorists have argued that feminist contributions to the field have yet to be fully acknowledged and Community Informatics as a research area has yet to welcome feminist interventions.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Peddle|first=Katrina |author2=Powell, Alison |author3=Shade, Leslie Regan|title=Bringing feminist perspectives into community informatics|journal=Atlantis: A Women's Studies Journal|year=2008|volume=32|issue=2|page=8}}</ref> This exists despite the presence of several gender-oriented studies and leadership roles played by women in community informatics initiatives.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Peddle|first=Katrina |author2=Powell, Alison |author3=Shade, Leslie Regan|title=Bringing feminist perspectives into community informatics|journal=Atlantis: A Women's Studies Journal|year=2008|volume=32|issue=2|page=11}}</ref>