orientations : emergence, formulation of policy measures, implementation, evaluation. Communautique's role as a connector for the community sector in the ...
Community groups and Information Technology (IT) policies in Québec and Canada : the case of Communautique Nicolas Lecomte Serge Proulx
In this paper, we describe and analyze the links established between the community group named Communautique and the major IT policies in Québec and Canada : the Politique de l'autoroute de l'information (Information Highway Policy, 1998) and the « Connecting canadians » agenda (1997). Our work shows that community groups are linked to the government through at least two types of actions that coexist, even if they seem contradictory at first glance. Community groups could be labelled as service providers, as they are entitled to realize or lead projects that the government has already defined. This view only stresses on the realizations of a group through its government-funded projects. But we can't forget that community groups are also acting like legitimate critics of public policies. First, during the policy building process they often try to influence the government's orientations. Second, while they're leading funded projects they can value the needs they consider the most important, and they can contribute in evaluating policies' objectives and administration. This last example directly refers to « emancipatory evaluations », as they've been defined by Monnier and Baron (2006). Communautique is a good example of the thin line between agency and critical roles that are exercised by a community group. In a large part (around 50%), these groups are financed by the state and they don't have much choice to play his own game. Building on Vincent Lemieux's (2002) contributions to public policy analysis, we demonstrate how Communautique is or has been active at the four (4) different steps of Québec and Ottawa's IT orientations : emergence, formulation of policy measures, implementation, evaluation. Communautique's role as a connector for the community sector in the country is summarized through the major projects lead by the group, that enabled a community-lead appropriation of ITs on the behalf of real needs identified with a bottom-up approach (needs studies of 1996, 1999, 2004). We then stress on Communautique's critical contribution to Quebec's IT policy, as the group progressively became a leader who defined its own vision of the Internet, through the definition of « Access rights », and who now closely follows the developments of the e-government. Throughout this study, we show that Communautique contributes both in doing and thinking a responsible IT diffusion. Communautique contributes in bringing to the forefront of the political debate some critical issues that tend to cool down the fact that the information society metaphore (Proulx, 2007) tends to be naturally acted in a determinist fashion, and not deeply discussed. We can also mention that the notion of a « conflictual cooperation » between the state and the community sector, developped by the sociologist Deena White (2001), will also appear as a major line in our analysis.
I. A « governetics approach to public policies In this section, we come back on several definitions and concepts that have helped us analyze the ties
between Communautique and the government. These elements come from one of Vincent Lemieux's books, which title is L'étude des politiques publiques – Les acteurs et leur pouvoir (2002)1. The author presents a systemic approach of the government and politics, inspired by the sociology of organizations as it focuses on the variety strategies the actors use within the political « game ». Then, we'll have more tools to understand Communautique's actions within IT policies in Québec and Canada. 1. What's a public policy ? What can research look at ? Lemieux draws on Kingdon's (1995) definition of public policies. Kingdon's « garbage can model » associates the three major streams in policy analysis : problems, solutions and politics. Lemieux introduces this definition : « Public policies (...) are regulation processes where actors, within power relationships (policy), try to find solutions to public problems. » (Lemieux, 2002, p.34)
This definition tends to isolate three elements : −
regulation processes relates to the policy's administration and efficiency ;
−
power relationships help to estimate the unequal influence of actors within policy processes ;
−
public problems focus more on the reasons of policy production, where concrete measures are usually meant to adress certain problems. In this case it's interesting to go beyond public discourse, and see how and why some problems receive more attention than others.
The governetics approach focuses on « the science and art of public policy regulation » (Lemieux, p.17), where policies are seen as attempts to govern and regulate public affairs (ibid., p.26). Public policy development can be analyzed as « a set of decisions where actors try to affect a variety of issues with their assets2 [and resources], as the real power of actors consists in controling the decisionmaking process according to their preferences » (p.19). In the area of social policy, problems that policy-makers generally consider public and legitimate concern the distribution of ressources within society. These problems occur when a gap is identified between real situations and social norms of acceptability (income inequalities, human dignity, etc.). 2. Public policies as processes Public policies can be seen as processes. Indeed, they are built and implemented following the work of a variety of actors who, within a hierarchy, meet and try to create a common understanding of public problems, and who then define objectives and concrete actions that must be solutions to these problems. Lemieux considers four successive steps to the process of policy-making : −
The Emergence of a policy happens when public problems are identified, be it by policy-makers, administrators or groups of interested actors. All the actors use their assets and ressources to influence the following step of the policy-making process. Lemieux notes that actors are more influential as they know the government's rules, and if they have a certain status. In this sense, actors from different levels of power compete to define the context guiding the future policy.
1 It could be translated as « The study of public policies – actors and their power » 2 In the original analytical report, we provide more informations on the actors, their assets and resources.
−
The Formulation refers to the decisions around policy objectives, funding initiatives and eligibility, etc. Usually the formulation is done within the government's administration, as policy-interested actors play a limited rôle compared to agents and responsibles. Status, norms, informations and relations are among the most crucial assets actors use at this stage of the policy making process. We'll see that Communautique, through its needs studies, has gathered a lot of information over time.
−
The Implementation is the way the policy is organized and put into action. Groups of policyinterested actors want to be considered and try to negotiate with government agents and responsibles. As soon as the policy is implemented, the first reactions are a form of evaluation, that becomes more concrete and legitimate over time, when the policy's effects appear.
−
The Evaluation of a policy can be more or less participative. Monnier and Baron (2003) explain that évaluations vary in terms of width (the diversity of its participants) and depth (level of participation). Authors promote a new « emancipatory » evaluation, where all the policy-interested groups and citizens may participate to every step of the evaluation, from its planification to its finalization.
II. Communautique's actions within IT policies In this section, we describe the roles Communautique played and the benefits he received from its implication into ITs public policies in Québec and Canada. We want to establish the main trends of Communautique's political action, and also to evaluate the policies' capacity to answer the social and community needs that Communautique expressed. These two research objectives are closely tied, as the government's hability to respond to social needs through policy-making is symptomatic of the « conflictual cooperation » between him and the Quebec community sector (White, 2001). To sum up, we'll see that Communautique's actions are, at least, of two kinds. First, through several government-funded projects that we'll briefly summarize, the group offers concrete activities that help community groups and citizens appropriate new technologies, while he promotes Internet access and becomes an expert in training. On the other side, Communautique is a voice for community groups and citizens, organizing public debates around key issues related to ITs developments.3 1. Projects with/without Quebec government's support For the most part, during its first years of existence, Communautique has been active in Montreal, and soon after in other regions of Québec. Its funding was local, but the group quickly gained the attention of the Quebec government, who already had a specific fund dedicated to IT projects since 1994, but no general orientation. We can recall that, in 1996, Communautique was the only techno-oriented project recognized by the policy makers, during the Sommet de l'économie et de l'emploi. Communautique played a central role in creating the first public Internet access points in Montreal, where the group set up discovering and training sessions to informatics and the Internet, showing citizens and community activists what they could do with this new information and communication tool. Communautique quickly became a leader among community groups and other civic initiatives, providing its expertise of website creation, staff training and technical support. In 1998, Communautique along with several community partners were active during the formulation of 3 The description of Communautique's activities is far more documented in a research paper called : Proulx & Lecomte. 2007. « Le milieu communautaire et les politiques publiques : Étude de cas sur l'organisme Communautique », to be published.
Quebec's Information Highway Policy. The coalition was active in the medias and promoted a better governmental support for initiatives coming from the community sector. The group then solidified its expertise in techno-oriented service provision, while participating in major projects lead by the Quebec government, like Courrier.qc.ca and Inforoutes – Access Points. Quebec's Information Highway Policy involved several ministries and is a crucial step for developing technology access in Québec. This policy funded many of Communautique's projects, but the group also benefited from other funding sources. Communautique could be elligible to different funding programs because its activity is varied : training ; website development ; research & analysis ; equipment provision ; networking ; technical support ; partnership ; dialogue with community groups, etc.4 This variety prevents Communautique from being affiliated to a single ministry or funding source, reducing the group's dependancy on the government's structural needs, which vary over time and may result in funding fluctuations. In 1998, Communautique's intervention during the Information Highway Policy formulation was about risks' anticipation : the Internet could increase social inequalities, providing additional tools for economic and social domination, while the already poor could be left out. This intervention relied on Communautique's knowledge of the « digital divide », which got broader thanks to the group's concrete realizations and inquiries lead within community groups (needs studies). These inquiries showed the persistance of certain needs among citizens and community groups workers, like training, technical support, and the importance of developing strategic uses5. They became a legitimate informational ressource, influencing the vision of other groups and citizens through public consultations, and giving Communautique another asset to play the political game. We can add that the needs' studies are also a source of evaluation, showing the persistance of certain needs and the existence of others, unconsidered by the government. The results of the needs studies directly identify the issue of what Gurstein (2004) defines as « effective use » : « The capacity and opportunity to successfully integrate ICTs into the accomplishment of self or collaboratively identified goals. » (Gurstein, 2004, p.229) We'll come back on this issue later in this paper, when we'll give more details surrounding Communautique's vision of the « Information society ». More recently, concerning Quebec's e-government project, Communautique's consultations consisted in surveys among citizens and community groups regarding their expectations and fears about this project. We could see this contribution as a form of risks' anticipation based on potential political and social control. Recently, the e-governenment project suffered major setbacks. First Québec's DGE comdemned the way electronic voting was held during the municipal elections of 2005. Second, the Ministry of Government Services was merged following last april's provincial elections. This doesn't prevent Communautique from being active and cautious regarding this project, through the CEDEL's6 activities and the Communautaire en ligne project. 2. Summary of Communautique's « Connecting canadians » projects On the canadian scene, Communautique didn't play a direct role during the emergence and the 4
Site web de Communautique, http://www.communautique.qc.ca/a-propos/axes-de-travail.html , [consulté en mars 2007]
5 These needs studies are described in our working paper, but also in our previous research on Communautique. See Proulx, Lecomte, Rueff (2006). 6 Comité d'étude sur la démocratie en ligne (could be translated as : e-Democracy Study Group). Website, consulted in May 2007 : http://www.communautique.qc.ca/reflexion-et-enjeux/cedel.html
formulation of Ottawa's IT orientations and initiatives. But the simple fact that the group was eligible to several fundings from key programs, starting in 1999, proves that it had already gained a lot of credibility. We'll just provide a few informations about what Communautique could achieve thanks to programs like VolNet, Francommunautés virtuelles, PAC (Youth initiative for the most part) and GITI. The Volnet project can be considered a double success : −
it helped a large number of community groups to get computers, networking equipments and user training to ITs ;
−
Communautique could develop regional partnerships and expand its vision range in Quebec, while other groups could also offer training sessions.
The CACI (community access centers) network gives birth to new practices among community groups, as each CACI provides citizens a place for accessing the Internet, using bureautics applications, which requires new training and supervision skills for host groups. The CAP initiative also arouses partnerships between community groups, schools, libraries, enterprises, foundations, government representatives, etc. The problem is that some CACI initiatives have been abandonned, usually from a lack of funding. This project, one of the most successful among the « Connecting canadians » agenda, is currently evaluated behind closed doors, even though many testimonies relate its efficiency and positive impulse among community groups and citizens around Canada (Moll, 2007)7. On the same issue, Communautique relates on its website that no additional funding was obtained for its activities related to the CAP Youth Initiative, Industry Canada's support ended at the end of february 2007, even though this project has been a large success and that the social demand remains important : « Chez Communautique, de 106 animateurs au début de juin dernier, l’Initiative jeunesse du Programme d’accès communautaire compte maintenant une vingtaine (20) d’animateurs et animatrices à l’échelle de la province. Comme on si attendait un peu, nous n’avons pas obtenu de financement additionnel nous permettant de poursuivre les services dans les CACI (Centre d’accès communautaire à Internet) au-delà du 28 février 2007, date de fin du projet. Pourtant, la demande est bel et bien là : près de 9500 ateliers de formation gratuite ont été donnés par les animateurs et animatrices de l’IJ-PAC entre juin et octobre 2006 !Les CACI nous ont fait part de leur désarrois devant le départ des animateurs – une première vague de départ à la fin du mois de septembre et une seconde plus importante encore à la fin du mois d’octobre. Conséquence : la plupart des CACI ont cessé leurs activités de formation gratuite faute de personne ressource pour s’en occuper. Autre conséquence, les CACI où il y a toujours des animateurs et des animatrices débordent. En outre, le CACI de Communautique de huit postes informatiques reçoit chaque jour 16 personnes qui désirent s’initier à la micro-informatique et à l’Internet. »8
Just recently, Industry Canada announced that the CAP initiative was to be extended for 2007-2008, but no details about funding were divulged9.
7 The CACI network of Charlevoix is another good example of the benefits of the CAP program : http://www.cacicharlevoix.ca/ 8 Source : Communautique website, consulted in May 2007 : http://www.communautique.qc.ca/nouvelles/nouvellescommunautique/nouvelles-ij-pac.html 9 Source : Industry Canada, consulted in June 2007 : http://www.ic.gc.ca/cmb/welcomeic.nsf/0/85256a5d006b9720852572f2005128b5?OpenDocument
We can also mention that the GI-TI project, where Communautique is active since 2004, gave birth to a free phone line and a website listing companies and community groups offering free or cheap services. Now, we can come back on the major findings of Communautique's needs studies conducted within a large number of community groups in Québec. This will help us identify how IT policies could (or couldn't) respond to social and community needs.
III. Communautique's contribution to information and technology policy 1. Some of the government's solutions Generally, IT public policies have responded to the community sector's needs in computer equipment and networking, favoring installations and the deployment of a physical infrastructure. Training for citizens and community groups' workers has also been considered as an important issue, through sections of funded projects like Inforoutes, Volnet and CAP, or through the core funding of Communautique's training expertise, enabling the group to offer regular training sessions in its own facilities. However, community needs in equipment and training can't be completely fulfilled, they won't disappear because the IT market is always in transition. New and better tools regularly appear, be it software or web innovations that make usage even more complex. So policies have to face the fact that the equipment has to be renewed, and users' education through training must follow the evolution of technological skills that enable an efficient use of ITs. This is why long term government fundings, or even core fundings, appear necessary in order to keep the community connected. More generally, if the government responded to some of the community needs regarding access, the question of how the problems are defined remains decisive. What follows shows the valuability of Communautique's reflexions for a deeper consideration of unequalities in the government's policies. 2. Communautique : a political actor In reference to Lemieux's typology of the actors implied in policy processes (2002), Communautique appears to be an « interested expert ». The group can be called an expert because of its numerous projects, its reflexons, its ties with IT experts, be it government responsibles, organizations like CEFRIO, or academics. As we already mentionned, the needs studies conducted by the group work as informational ressources for him, and the important funded projects he lead build its legitimacy and its status in the eyes of policy makers. We believe that one of the most crucial contributions of the community sector to the development of IT policies, concerns the political consideration of the « digital divide », particularly when Communautique develops the idea of « access rights » in its Plateforme de l'Internet citoyen (2002). Following its 1998 analysis of Quebec's Information Highway Policy, Communautique developped its own community-driven vision of the « yet to be built » information society. The Plateforme follows the 2001 needs study and the debates that followed the divulgation of its results. This document is quite interesting because it synthetizes the group's values and beliefs towards ITs, and towards the way the government handles its implementation. It's a manifesto that any group or single citizen can adhere to by signing it. It's also Quebec's community groups' contribution to a democratic, fair and participative knowledge society10.
10 Communautique a participé à « Global CN 2002: IIIème conférence internationale des réseaux citoyens », une initiative de Telecommunities Canada.
One of Communautique's major developments in its Plateforme concerns « access rights ». Access isn't limited to equipment acquisition, it also refers to technical skills. It's important to consider training as an important issue, it must be adapted to the citizens' needs, as several factors – like social, economic, geographical, cultural or generational – can play against one's capacity to access and use new technologies properly. « Access rights » need to be instituted in a society where technologies play a central role. As education, access must be guaranteed universally, every citizen must have equal chances to use technologies at their full potential. In this sense, digital divide can be considered as the unequalities related to both « the capacity to access equipment and networking facilities, and the capacity to contribute to knowledge production enhanced by the Internet » (Communautique, op.cit). Like any other social divide, the digital divide acts as a poverty factor. This vision goes beyond the government's responses to the digital divide problem, as access is generally reduced to equipment or Internet connection. They are important issues, but not sufficient. The Plateforme reminds that social and political issues are implied by the development of the information society. The document expresses political demands, and directly calls for a collective debate around the place of ITs within society. The Internet should be driven by its citizens, and by the bottom-up approach used by the policy makers. In the sense of a Citizen Internet, the community sector should be largely involved, groups should promote a real empowerment that would go further than consumerism or access to the labor market. ITs have a potential to stimulate democratic life and civic participationm but they have to be developped within a political vision, not only for commercial sake : « [le mouvement communautaire se chargerait d'] offrir une vision plus large que celle davantage axée sur le commerce et [de] traduire le processus d’appropriation démocratique nécessaire afin que les technologies de l’information et de la communication servent à soutenir la participation à la société, la vie démocratique ainsi que l’expression d’une citoyenneté pleine et entière » (Communautique, 2002).
In order to be congruent with its will to develop online government services, the State has to consider Internet as a public service, that any portion of the population could use. The Plateforme calls the government for long term initiatives regarding access and training, promotion of accessibility norms for websites and other new technologies, education to media use and ethics for communities, etc. All these activities would naturally involve community groups. To sum up, we can say that the Citizen Internet is a new and more inclusive Internet, where grassroots initiatives play a central role. Finally, we can notice that Communautique 's reflexions concern, at the least, social and civil rights. For example, the group's vision of the e-government directly insists on civil rights issues, as the citizens' individual freedom has to be guaranteed against the potential State surveillance that such a project could lead us to. In this sense, the citizens' rights within information society are defined negatively, in reference to a potential risk. The positive part of this definition could be the « access rights » we already spoke about. Then, the minimal condition for one citizen to be fairly represented in the information society (and through the e-government) would be that he has equal chances to access technological equipment and produce knowledge. All in all, what those claims aim at is a fair distribution of ressources (technological for that matter), a universal access to education, which altogether would lead us to a more equal distribution of social positions. Civil rights and social rights are both central.
Conclusion Our research shows that the ties between the State and community groups are complex ones. We could identify a dynamic movement that can help the understanding of the interactions between community
groups and policy processes : 1) Community groups, with other interested actors, showcase their own needs and the social needs they can perceive, which are considered (or not) like legitimate problems through the emergence and then the formulation of public policies ; 2) The government assesses its main objectives and orientations, giving priority to certain problems against others, that he'll try to solve by implementing its policies ; 3) Through this implementation, community and social needs are more or less satisfied. Community groups then try to provide a reinformation of public policies, through public debate or formal evaluations of the funding programs. We can say that Communautique is in an intermediary position between the government's policies and the social needs expressed by community groups, whose needs have always determined Communautique's mission, guaranteeing a better appropriation of technological tools. In a way, Communautique is implicated during the emergence, formulation and implementation of public policies. At the same time, the group has to adapt to policy goals in order to be funded. Being funded means that your work will be evaluated. The State could appear like a democratic and participatory space that only aims to produce policies. But in the end it possesses a huge power over community groups : through funding a government can decide which groups can work, how they can work, within what limits, etc. As we say, that didn't prevent Communautique from developing a critical position to the development of the « information society ». Its bottom-up reflexion based on community needs and public debates produces a very interesting reflexion that's very valuable to the field of community informatics. Communautique directly calls for « effective use », and « effective access », as the group's actions within communities litterally « [takes] into account the fact that access is a socially situated behaviour and phenomenon. » (Gurstein, op.cit., p.230)
References Baron, Gaëlle, Monnier, Éric. 2003. « Une approche pluraliste et participative : coproduire l'évaluation avec la société civile ». In Informations sociales, n.110, (septembre) Communautique. 2004. « Enquête sur les besoins en formation et soutien technique des organismes communautaires et bénévoles du Québec ». Montréal. Communautique. 2002. « Plateforme quebecoise de l’Internet citoyen ». Montréal. En ligne : http://www.communautique.qc.ca/reflexion-et-enjeux/internet-citoyen/plateforme.html (consulté en mars 2007) Communautique. 2001. « Le monde communautaire et Internet: défis, obstacles et espoirs - Résultats de l'enquête auprès des groupes communautaires ». Montréal. En ligne : http://www.communautique.qc.ca/reflexion-et-enjeux/appropriation/monde-communautaire.html (consulté en février 2007) Communautique. 1997. « Rapport de l'étude de besoins ». Montréal. En ligne : http://www.communautique.qc.ca/reflexion-et-enjeux/appropriation/etude-besoins.html (consulté en février 2007) Gouvernement du Canada. Industrie Canada. 1997. « Un Canada branché ». En ligne : http://www.taybridge.com/mtc/toc_e.htm (consulté en mai 2007)
Gouvernement du Québec. 1998. Politique québécoise de l'autoroute de l'information : Agir autrement. 106 p. Gurstein, Michael. 2004. « Effective use and the community informatics sector : some thoughts on Canada's approach to community technology / community access ». p.223-243 In Moll, Marita and Leslie Reagan Shade (ed.). 2004. Seeking Convergence in Policy and Practice : communications in the public interest. Vol. 2. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Ottawa. 412 p. Moll, Marita. 2007. « Success doesn’t compute for the federal Community Access Program ». In The Monitor, Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives, Ottawa, Vol. 14, n.2 (June, to be published). Lemieux, Vincent. 2002. L'étude des politiques publiques – Les acteurs et leur pouvoir. Seconde édition. Québec : Presses de l'université Laval, 195 p. Proulx, Serge, Nicolas Lecomte et Julien Rueff. 2006 « Une monographie de Communautique ». Notes de recherches du Centre Interuniversitaire de Recherche sur les Sciences et Techniques (CIRST), Montréal, 40 p. En ligne : http://www.cirst.uqam.ca/Portals/0/docs/note_rech/2006_01.pdf (consulté en mai 2007) Proulx, Serge et Nicolas Lecomte. 2005. « Une monographie de Communautique : Portrait d’une organisation quebecoise orientee vers l’appropriation sociale des technologies de l’information et de la communication en milieu communautaire ». Working Paper, Alliance canadienne de recherche pour le reseautage et l'innovation communautaires (ACRRIC/CRACIN), Montreal. White, Deena. 2001. « Maîtriser un mouvement, dompter une idéologie - L'État et le secteur communautaire au Québec ». ISUMA, vol.2, no.2, p.34-46
