1
Report of the CAGS/SSHRC Roundtable Project:
Imagining Canada's Future
April 16, 2015
Prepared by: Kim Martin
Table of Contents
Report from the Rapporteur Page 3
Appendix A – Agenda and List of ParticipantsPage 14
Appendix B – Events of the Day on StorifyPage 18
Introduction and Context
On March 27, 2015 a panel of graduate students representing the various disciplines that make up the Social Sciences and the Humanities from The University of Western Ontario and the University of Windsor gathered as part of a national dialogue on “Imagining Canada’s Research Future”, which was organized by the Western’s School of Graduate & Postdoctoral Studies at the request of the Canadian Association for Graduate Students (CAGS) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). The gathering was held in person at both the University of Windsor and Western University, and the two panels of students (about 24 in total) were connected virtually throughout the day to discuss the question “How can emerging technologies be leveraged to benefit Canadians?”
After opening remarks by Dr. Andrew Nelson of Western’s representative to SSHRC and Associate Dean of Research in Social Science, the group was joined online by the day’s keynote speaker: Michael Carter from Ryerson University’s Digital Media Zone. Carter provided context for the term ‘Emerging Technology”, reflecting on previous technologies created by such inspirational figures as Marshall McLuhan, Pablo Picasso, and Ada Lovelace. Carter also spoke of the large-scale changes to recent technology and hinted at the possibilities that 3D printers, drones, and augmented reality tools might offer in the near future, prompting one participant to respond “We live in the future!” Carter then concluded with the need for critical reflection on the tenacity of these emerging technologies, and left on the final note: “Technology doesn’t come from one spot, it comes from all spots.”
Roundtable Discussion
Following the keynote, the chair for the event, doctoral student Nandita Dutta, led the entire group of students in a discussion that was prompted by the following paragraph:
As indicated in the SSHRC 2010 report, Alternative Wor(l)ds: the Humanities in 2010, the digital age is now clearly upon us. New digital and other technologies, such as 3D printing and robotics, are developing at breakneck speed. In order to benefit from, integrate and adapt to these technologies effectively, we need to understand their ethical, environmental, economic, legal and social implications. Canada—and the world—needs social scientists and humanities scholars to focus on these questions. By understanding how the latest tools can be used to both answer and ask questions, we as a society can stay ahead of the curve, mitigate risks andtake advantage of emerging opportunities.
As all of the participants were from different disciplines, the start of this conversation also functioned as an opportunity for us to get to know each other, as we learned each other’s perspectives on emerging technologies (ETs), and how we individually conceived of them as connected to our research. The following list demonstrates the variety of opinions, disciplines, and concerns regarding emerging technology.
Discipline / Introductory remarks regarding Emerging Technology (ETs)Hispanic Studies / How has emerging tech changed the way that humanities scholars are studying around the globe?
Geography / Concerns of climate change and inequality of access to tech
Health Psychology / Benefits of technology and the Web in healthcare
History / Technology is a rhetorical bridge for talking about the past
Psychology / Ability to provide care to rural communities
Health & Rehabilitation Sciences / What happens to language and culture as English remains the predominant language for use and discussion of emerging tech?
Anthropology (Bioarchaeology) / The need to be ethical in our research regarding technologies, and understand that use and assumptions may differ by culture.
Psychology / What is the proper way to engage with various cultures/groups?
Applied Social Psychology / Academic and community partnerships needed to make technology equitable.
It was clear from the introductory notes and roundtable discussion that the term “emerging technologies” had various connotations for each participant. Before the group divided into smaller “break out sessions” to discuss four important themes presented by CAGS/SSHRC, they were asked by the rapporteur to briefly define the term “emerging technologies” in each break-out session.
Break out Sessions
The next part of the day moved quite rapidly, with four smaller groups (with members from each institution connected virtually) formed in separate rooms to attempt to answer the four sub-questions:
How can emerging technologies be leveraged to benefit Canadians with respect to:
a) sustainable and resilient communities?
b) creativity, innovation and prosperity?
c) values, inclusion, cultures and diversity?
d) governance and institutions?
Each of these questions resulted in animated and intriguing discussions, and more often or not more questions than answers resulted from the ideas presented in each room. The following section is a summary of the ways in which ET was defined, and how each sub-question was reflected on and discussed.
Defining Emerging Technologies
In the discussion about how best to define emerging technologies (ET), most of the groups started by thinking about computers and the Internet. For example, one group first decided that ETs were the “use of the internet and computer infrastructure in all aspects of culture, economy, and industry”, until they reflected that technology was also much broader than computers and started to think about what was happening outside of computer technology. This led to discussions of physical or tangible technology versus technology that we use but is more ephemeral in nature, such as websites or social media. ET was then broadened to include not only the computer technology, but ways in which services are being delivered, access is being granted, and infrastructure is being created and sustained.
The notion that ETs are “anything used to improve lifestyle or make things more efficient” became a hotly debated topic amongst two groups. New types of seeds and farming, new breakthroughs in the medical field and electric cars were all examples of ETs that were being developed and, if implemented fully, would serve to benefit the overall quality of life of their users. Some participants thought on a larger scale, arguing that communication technologies such as Twitter have allowed for “a revamp of existing global systems” and have impacted areas such as journalism, civilian protest, and environmentalism. Though all of the benefits of these ETs were largely understood, several participants suggested that there was a negative side to ETs as well. Examples that were given were software used by computer hackers leading to the invasion of privacy, and weapons built for mass destruction. This healthy positive versus negative debate would continue in several of the ongoing discussions throughout the day.
Question 1 - How can emerging technologies be leveraged to benefit Canadians with respect to sustainable and resilient communities?
Definitions:
Participants in this group worked to define the terms Sustainable and Resilient before attempting to answer the question as to leveraging ETs to benefit this type of community. Sustainable was understood to be “something that stands the test of time”, while Resiliency was a sense of “socially negotiated process of persistence”. Three main points came out the discussions that followed.
Sharing economy:
There has been much talk of the ‘sharing economy’ recently (Basen, 2015) and this was reflected in the discussions surrounding ETs. Emerging online platforms were seen as loci for community creation and building, where people get together online and share information, interests, ideas, and solutions. In addition to the communities and sharing that took place online, there were many connections that were transferring to real-world solutions, and encouraging people to work together in places such as community gardens, makerspaces, and social supports groups. Access to emerging technologies was an important point here, as participants felt that access to not only the technologies themselves, but the information necessary to locate them, and the skills needed to use them properly. Encouraging those with certain skills or access to technologies to share allows for knowledge to spread through communities where it is needed and encourages side-by-side learning and open communication. It also helps to keep waste to a minimum. One examples of this are the tool libraries that are gaining in popularity. Instead of everyone purchasing and owning tools for every job, members pay a small fee for upkeep and donate their tools into a catalog from which they might borrow anything from a hammer to a chainsaw. Many tool libraries are also offering classes to encourage do-it-yourself learning amongst members (see, for example,
Critical engagement in technology:
Participants noted that, as researchers, it is our job to be respectful when conducting research on, with, or about ETs. It is important to remember that “value is not universal” and that new does not always mean better. Instead of approaching a community with a technology such as a cell phone and showing them how to use it, researchers must be critical of the technology they are studying, assessing the consequences of the ET on people’s lives, and understanding that technology does not always solve the problems it was designed to. It was repeatedly mentioned that sustainable and resilient communities were a result of the people that worked hard to make them so, and that the human aspect of these circles must be remembered, as it is more important than the technology.
Developing community and academic partnerships:
At the moment, participants noted, it was difficult for researchers in academia to have any true understanding of the communities around them and the way in which they might be leveraging ETs. This is largely because university campuses are largely isolated from their communities, as they are “one of the only institutions that doesn't invite the entire society to participate”. To solve this, participants suggested a ground-up approach, one that is more inclusive and inviting instead of a paternalistic “let us show you” approach that has been used to communicate with other groups in the past. By developing partnerships between academia and surrounding communities to study, create, and test new emerging technologies, these ETs can be reflective of the needs of specific populations, and specific values will be built into them from inception, instead of these tools being adopted for uses other than the original intention.
Question 2 - How can emerging technologies be leveraged to benefit Canadians with respect to creativity, innovation and prosperity?
Definitions:
Immediately the conversation around this question looked at economic prosperity, with one participant arguing that prosperity could also mean general well-being or happiness, regardless of financial wealth. Regardless, the participants noted that the term Prosperity itself highlights disparity and makes one question how to understand prosperity of Canada as a whole, as there is a sense of inequality naturally embedded in that term. That being the case, the first group of participants said it might be better to ask the question “How do we deal with disparity?” The gradual consensus on this subject seemed to be: The more individuals contribute to society as a whole, the more prosperous we all become. Is our role as students, perhaps, to question, “how do we value these various types of contributions?”
Creativity and Innovation were seen as connected entities to participants, who defined the former as the “ability or inclination to create something (e.g. solution to a problem, etc.), original ideas, willingness to think or take a new perspective on something” and the latter as “creativity’s practical extension, or what results from a creative effort”.
Technology and Creativity:
There was some debate between participants over the effects of technology on the creative process. Some argued that technology makes artistic creativity weaker, and the speed at which information is being shared and received limits people’s patience when learning new hands-on skills. One participant wondered, “Is technology spreading innovation? If we all follow what's cool at the time, does that stop us from being creative?” To counter this, others said that technology increased creativity, as the ability to share what you are making and to learn from and be inspired by others was made easier by emerging technologies such as web apps and social media sites such as Pinterest.
Others argued for other types of ETs. 3D printers, scanners, and modelling software, for example, have created an entirely new form of creativity where engineers and artists alike can create and tinker. Digital music platforms have allowed for everyone to mix their own music, allowing for “mash-ups” and other new genres, which push the limits of music artistry and further the creativity of this art.
Role of the expert:
There was concern expressed for what this democratization of emerging technology does to those who used to be considered ‘experts’ in their fields. If everyone can take a great photo or remix an album, what happens to professionalization? Participants again looked back to the model of the sharing economy here, and wondered if ‘shared research and shared art’ was a better model than everyone trying to be an expert.
One example here is that of the teacher. Educators want to see more emerging technology in classrooms, everywhere from kindergarten through to university. This led participants to question the role of the teacher: instead of being a source of knowledge, are teachers becoming facilitators of digital literacy? Participants recognized that this change in educational leadership, one that is already happening, might change the face of learning altogether.
Question 3 - How can emerging technologies be leveraged with respect to values, inclusion, cultures and diversity?
Definitions:
The groups had some difficulty defining these terms, as participants held many different views about what they could encompass. Overall, it seemed that Values were “that which one feels is important”, with a view to moral, ethical and societal values, as opposed to monetary value.Inclusion meant equal opportunity for everyone to have a voice and a sense of belonging, regardless of their background, beliefs, or values. Culture was a sense of identity that may be shaped by others around you, your environment, and your experiences. It was considered an all-encompassing concept that captures art, language, religion etc. Diversity was a measure of differences in identity between both individuals and cultures within a larger society.
Inequality:
Much of the conversation in this room centered around inequality, and the pros and cons of using technology to attempt to solve problems rooted in unequal distribution of technology (digital divide), geographically centered marginalization, and unfair treatment of the disabled. “As we develop infrastructure around emerging technologies” one participant noted, “we can include more voices to be heard.” An example given was the ability to reach rural communities and marginalized populations with technology that allowed them to have access to better healthcare and counseling.
Others wondered, however, if ETs, so often viewed as solutions, actually cause us to avoid the root cause of serious issues that should be addressed prior to bringing in these technologies. For example, while it is great that many groups (LGTBQ, social activists, etc) have found communities on the web and these communities have proven benefits, there still exists many prejudices that they experience in their everyday lives that belonging to an online community can not necessarily solve.
CulturalLiteracy:
Culture had been on the minds of participants since the beginning of the day’s discussion, and concerns regarding globalization were repeated here. One group expressed the need to remain “culturally literate”, and to constantly reflect on the ways that cultural diversity changes the online experience. The merging of technology, it must be remembered, is always socially negotiated, and being aware of the ways that various segments of society adopt these technologies will help us to understand each other, our different intentions, and how we each play a part in developing our culture.
Question 4 - How can emerging technologies be leveraged to benefit Canadians with respect to governance and institutions?
Definitions:
There were several ways that participants decided to define Institutions. Some thought of them as “conceptual; established in some manner; beyond "brick and mortar", while others gave specific examples of places that “serve a unique purpose in society”, such as those affiliated with healthcare, sports, religion, and education. There was enough debate over the term Governance that the first group focused on this topic went to Wikipedia for a definition: "all processes of governing, whether undertaken by a government, market or network, whether over a family, tribe, formal or informal organization or territory and whether through laws, norms, power or language" (Wikipedia).