When Smartness of a Participatory Learning Ecosystem Should Not Be Interpreted as Mediation by Technology: Case-Study of Golbaf Town, Iran

  • Ali Maleki
  • Najmoddin Yazdi
  • Milad Jalalvand
  • Seyed Reza Tabibzade
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 95)

Abstract

Sustainable development is coined with ongoing social learning processes. As part of a sustainable regional development project in Golbaf town, Iran, development of a participatory community-based learning ecosystem (social learning) was soon found to be a requisite. This in turn was seen to be hampered by lack of social capitals, namely trust, self-confidence and participatoriness.

The interim results of the project indicate the followings as a way towards smartness (survivability) of a participatory learning ecosystem in developing contexts where mistrust, inactiveness and lack of confidence prevail: (1) Facilitating rather than doing by conveners, (2) learning by doing by citizens, and (3) gradual trust formation. It also questions suitability and survivability of highly technology-mediated learning ecosystems in such cases characterised by mistrust and lack of confidence.

The results suggest a progressive approach towards mediation of technologies. In fact, above socio-cultural barriers required us to proceed face-to-face for the regeneration of social capital in order to make the newly-born learning ecosystem survivable and embeddable by time.

Keywords

Sustainable development Participatory community-based learning ecosystem Mistrust Lack of self-confidence 

References

  1. 1.
    Loeber, A., van Mierlo, B., Grin, J., Leeuwis, C.: The practical value of theory: conceptualising learning in the pursuit of a sustainable development. In: Social Learning Towards a Sustainable World, pp. 83–98. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Callois, J.-M., Aubert, F.: Towards indicators of social capital for regional development issues: the case of French rural areas. Reg. Stud. 41(6), 809–821 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Iyer, S., Kitson, M., Toh, B.: Social capital, economic growth and regional development. Reg. Stud. 39(8), 1015–1040 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harriss, J., De Renzio, P.: POLICY ARENA: ‘Missing link’ or analytically missing? The concept of social capital. Edited by John Harriss. An introductory bibliographic essay. J. Int. Dev. 9(7), 919–937 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wals, A.E.: Social Learning Towards a Sustainable World: Principles, Perspectives, and Praxis. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tilbury, D., Cooke, K.: A national review of environmental education and its contribution to sustainability in Australia: frameworks for sustainability. Department for the Environment and Heritage, and Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jönsson, S., Lukka, K.: Doing interventionist research in management accounting. University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg Research Institute GRI (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goyal, S., Sergi, B.S.: Creating a formal market ecosystem for base of the pyramid markets-strategic choices for social embeddedness. Int. J. Bus. Glob. 15(1), 63–80 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pace, R., Dipace, A., di Matteo, A.: On-site and online learning paths for an educational farm. Pedagogical perspectives for knowledge and social development. Rem-Res. Educ. Media 6(1), 39–56 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moulaert, F., Nussbaumer, J.: The social region: beyond the territorial dynamics of the learning economy. Eur. Urban Reg. Stud. 12(1), 45–64 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rizzo, F., Deserti, A., de Pous, M.: Social Innovation Community EU Project. Deliverable 4.1. Report on SIC learning principles and processes (2017)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mealha, Ó.: Citizen-driven dashboards in smart ecosystems: a framework. Interact. Des. Archit. 31, 32–42 (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zago, R., Block, T., Dessein, J., Brunori, G., Messely, L.: Citizen participation in neo-endogenous rural development: the case of LEADER programme. In: 6th EAAE Ph.D. Workshop, Co-organized by AIEAA (Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics) and the Department of Economics of Roma Tre University (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Markkula, M., Kune, H.: Making smart regions smarter: smart specialization and the role of universities in regional innovation ecosystems. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 5(10) (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dondi, C., Aceto, S., Proli, D.: Learnovation Foresight Report. Foresight Report HAL Id: hal-00592999 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chang, W., Cha, M.: Government driven partnership for lifelong learning in Korea: a case study of four cities. Int. J. Lifelong Educ. 27(5), 579–597 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hibbitt, K., Jones, P., Meegan, R.: Tackling social exclusion: the role of social capital in urban regeneration on Merseyside—from mistrust to trust? Eur. Plan. Stud. 9(2), 141–161 (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schicklinski, J.: Civil society actors as drivers of socio-ecological transition?: Green spaces in European cities as laboratories of social innovation. Working Paper No. 102-THEME SSH.2011.1.2-1 (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Peirce, H.J.: The dynamics of learning partnerships: case studies from Queensland. Queensland University of Technology (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Research Institute for Science, Technology, and Industry Policy (RISTIP)Sharif University of TechnologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations