Editing Community informatics (section)

== Research and practice interests ==
{{More citations needed section|date=June 2014}}

{{One source section|date=September 2017}}

Research and practice ranges from concerns with purely virtual communities; to situations in which virtual or online communication are used to enhance existing communities in urban, rural, or remote geographic locations in developed or developing countries; to applications of ICTs for the range of areas of interest for communities including social and economic development, environmental management, media and "content" production, public management and e-governance among others.  A central concern, although one not always realized in practice is with "enabling" or "empowering" communities with ICT that is, ensuring that the technology is available for the community.  This further implies an approach to development which is rather more "bottom up" than "top down".

Areas of concern range from small-scale projects in particular communities or organizations which might involve only a handful of people, such as [[telecentres]]; an on online community of disabled people; civic networks and to large national, government sponsored networking projects in countries such as Australia and Canada or local community projects such as working with Maori families in New Zealand.  The [[Gates Foundation]] has been active in supporting public libraries in countries such as Chile.  An area of rapidly developing interest is in the use of ICT as a means to enhance citizen engagement as an "e-Governance" counterpart (or counterweight) to transaction oriented initiatives.

A key conceptual element and framing concept for Community Informatics is that of "effective use" introduced initially by [[Michael Gurstein]] in a critique of a research pre-occupation with the Digital Divide as ICT "access".<ref>{{cite journal |last=Gurstein |first=Michael |date=2003 |title=Effective use: A community informatics strategy beyond the Digital Divide |journal=First Monday |volume=8 |issue=12 |doi=10.5210/fm.v8i12.1107 |doi-access= free}}</ref> CI is concerned with how ICTs are used in practice and not simply facilitating "access" to them and the notion of "effective use" is a bridge between CI research (research and analysis of the constituent elements of effective use), CI policy (developing enabling structures and programmes supportive of "effective use") and practice (implementing applications and services in support of local communities).

Another way to understand CI is Clement and Shade's "access rainbow" (Clement and Shade 2000).<ref name="Clement&Shade2000">{{cite web |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267403849 |last1=Clement |first1=Andrew |last2=Shade |first2=Leslie |title=The Access Rainbow: Conceptualizing Universal Access to the Information/ Communications Infrastructure |date=2000 |access-date=November 6, 2022}}</ref> Clement and Shade have contended that accomplishing insignificant specialized connectedness to the Internet is no assurance that an individual or group will prevail with regards to appropriating new ICTs in ways that advance their improvement, independence, or empowerment. It is an approach which has multi-layered socio-specialized model for universal access to ICTs. It is displayed as seven layers, starting with the fundamental technical components of connectedness and moving upward through layers that inexorably push the essential social framework of access. The seven layers are:

7. Governance

6. Literacy / Social facilitation

5. Service / Access providers

4. Content / Services

3. Software tools

2. Devices

1. Carriage

Even though all elements are important, the most important one is the content /service layer in the middle, since this is where the actual utility is most direct. The upper layers focus on social dimensions and the lower layers focus on technical aspects.<ref name="Clement&Shade2000" />

Many practitioners would dispute any necessary connection to university research, regarding academic theorising and interventions as constraining or irrelevant to grassroots activity which should be beyond the control of traditional institutions, or simply irrelevant to practical local goals.

Some of the commonalities and differences may be in fact be due to national and cultural differences. For example, the capacity of many North American (and particularly US) universities to engage in [[service learning]] as part of progressive charters in communities large and small is part of a long-standing tradition absent elsewhere.  The tradition of service learning is almost entirely absent in the UK, Australia, or New Zealand, (and of limited significance in Canada) where the State has traditionally played a much stronger role in the delivery of community services and information.

In some countries such as the UK, there is a tradition of locally based grassroots community technology, for example in Manchester, or in [[Hebden Bridge]]. In Italy and the Netherlands, there also appears to have been a strong connection between the development of local civic networks based around a tradition of civic oppositionism, connected into the work of progressive academics.

In Latin America, Africa and many parts of Asia these efforts have been driven by external funding agencies as part of larger programs and initiatives in support of broader economic and social development goals. However, these efforts have now become significantly "indigenized" (and particularly in Latin America) and "bottom-up" ICT efforts are increasingly playing a leading role in defining the future use of ICT within local communities.

In Canada, The Canadian Research Alliance for Community Innovation and Networking (CRACIN) was established in 2003. Their goal is to explore and archive the status and achievements of CI activities in Canada. It is a research partnership between scholastics, specialists, and public sector delegates.<ref name="source35" />