When Smartness of a Participatory Learning Ecosystem Should Not Be Interpreted as Mediation by Technology: Case-Study of Golbaf Town, Iran
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.
KeywordsSustainable development Participatory community-based learning ecosystem Mistrust Lack of self-confidence
- 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
- 5.Wals, A.E.: Social Learning Towards a Sustainable World: Principles, Perspectives, and Praxis. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen (2007)Google Scholar
- 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.Jönsson, S., Lukka, K.: Doing interventionist research in management accounting. University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg Research Institute GRI (2005)Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.Mealha, Ó.: Citizen-driven dashboards in smart ecosystems: a framework. Interact. Des. Archit. 31, 32–42 (2016)Google Scholar
- 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
- 15.Dondi, C., Aceto, S., Proli, D.: Learnovation Foresight Report. Foresight Report HAL Id: hal-00592999 (2009)Google Scholar
- 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.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.Peirce, H.J.: The dynamics of learning partnerships: case studies from Queensland. Queensland University of Technology (2006)Google Scholar