Cultivating the women on farms gathering community: A digital approach.

1

CULTIVATING THE WOMEN ON FARMS GATHERING

COMMUNITY: A DIGITAL APPROACH

NATALIE LEE-SAN PANG

Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University,

Caulfield Campus, PO Box 197, Caulfield East, Victoria 3145, Australia

[email protected]

DONALD SCHAUDER

Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University,

Caulfield Campus, PO Box 197, Caulfield East, Victoria 3145, Australia

[email protected]

MARIAN QUARTLY

Faculty of Arts, Monash University,

c/o School of Historical Studies, Rm W604, Menzies Building, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia

[email protected]

LIZA DALE-HALLETT

History and Technology Department, Museum Victoria,

GPO Box 666, Melbourne, Victoria 3001, Australia

[email protected]

Developed around stories (both oral and written), and objects collected from the

community, this paper explores the possibilities of places from a digital collection

through empowering, enabling, and constraining the collective memories of the

community by the construction and reconstruction of individual knowledge. Insights

from the discussion are applied to a particular case. A project titled ‘Cultivating

memory: investigating the intersection of public history, museology and community

informatics in the Women on Farms Gathering (WoFG) heritage collection’ concerns a

collection of iconic objects, texts, oral history recordings, videos, photographs and

memorabilia relating to the lives of women on farms. The project explores how best this

collection can be placed and extended both physically and virtually, in terms both of

content and use. The digital collection contributes to the establishment of a ‘knowledge

commons’; a virtual space dedicated to the sharing of understanding, memories, and

knowledge within the community. Using this metaphor of the commons, this paper

demonstrates how the digital collection enables the reclaiming of understanding;

construction, revealing and representation of knowledge; and the cultivation of memories

within a community – all working together to provide a sense of place for a community.

Introduction

Using the case of the WoFG collection, this paper explores the potentialities, existence,

and development of virtual places as a site for cultivating identity for an existing

2

community. The exploration of this theory is partly based on structurational theory by

Giddens (1984), who offers the following insight:

The best and most interesting ideas in the social sciences (a) participate in fostering

the climate of opinion and the social processes which give rise to them, (b) are in greater

or lesser degree entwined with theories-in-use which help to constitute those processes

and (c) are thus unlikely to be clearly distinct from considered reflection which lay actors

may bring to bear in so far as they discursively articulate, or improve upon, theories-in-

use (Giddens, 1984: 34).

In other words, meanings, actions, and structures are closely and continuously

interdependent. According to Giddens, community cultures are generated and re-

generated through the interplay of action and structure. Social structure both supports and

constrains the endeavours of individuals, communities and, societies.

Within this context, we explore a number of intersections in this paper. Cultural

institutions are defined here as organisations that promote and support culture, education,

and sciences. Over the years, cultural institutions have become increasingly sensitive to

their communities and become more innovative in the designs and redesigns of their

services, information systems, and work spaces to cater to the needs of these communities

(Allmang, Liu and Sanders, 2005). Change is no doubt a constant with all organisations;

but we investigate how this change reflects, at a visionary level, a step by cultural

institutions towards what this paper refers to as the knowledge commons.

Dale (2003) argued for the case of museums as agents of change in communities. As

mainstream cultural institutions, museums have a significant role in ‘creating public

understanding and knowledge of the world’ (Dale, 2003). In her paper, Dale (2003)

suggested pragmatic examples of how museums around the world are repositioning

themselves as agents of cultural change, by collecting, preserving and facilitating

alternative discourses and knowledge.

This paper not only explores, through discussion of the case study, how a digital

collection can empower, enable, and constrain collective memories of the community

through the construction and reconstruction of knowledge. It also puts forward a lively

illustration of how the museum as a cultural institution can transform itself into a

knowledge commons using as a digital collection as one of its many tools.

The Women on Farms Gathering (WoFG) Collection

The first gathering was held by Victorian farm women in 1990, Warragul, Victoria. The

first gathering included a collection of symbolic objects and stories consisting of: two

large banners, videos, photographs, oral histories, memorial plaque, and a range of

memorabilia (t-shirts, mugs, bags), uniforms and symbolic icons such as a cow pat and

irrigation shovel, magic wand, cheque, Mallee stone, Mallee root, peaked cap, computer

motherboard, a jar of Mallee soil and seeds, farm work boot, horseshoe, spring, ceramic

hands and an open lock and key. It became an annual event thereafter, with each

gathering held in different locations. As the years went by, these gatherings grew in

3

attendance and depth, with themes selected for each gathering and the number of artifacts

increasing.

Yet the conception of items collected as a heritage and significant collection was not

realised until the gathering in 2001, when, items from past gatherings were brought

together to contribute to a series of history boards displayed at the Beechworth Gathering

in 2001. Committee members of the Gathering then contacted Museum Victoria for a

neutral, central institution who could ensure the sustainability of the collection. From

there, a Heritage Group was then established and consists of twenty-one women from

across Victoria, each representing past gatherings. In 2003, representatives of the

Women on Farms Gathering Heritage Group and Museum Victoria signed an agreement

to work together in making visible a story that has long been ignored: the vital and

creative role of Victorian women in sustaining their rural industries and communities.

Over 260 participants signed a three-metre long scroll as witnesses to this special

occasion.

The scope of the collection comprises of iconic objects, texts, oral history recordings,

videos, photographs and memorabilia relating to the lives of Victorian women of farms.

Since the first gathering the collection has seen the inclusion of stories – both oral and

written – about and brought to the gatherings, and physical artefacts: all working together

to facilitate the promotion, sharing, development, networking, and celebration of the

diverse roles and memories of Victorian women on farms and in rural communities.

With the involvement of the Museum, the collection had grown considerably in both

depth and breadth. This came about through the unique partnership between Victorian

women on farms, represented by the Women on Farms Heritage Committee, and Museum

Victoria. As the collection and engagement with the community grew across time and

distances, the need came up for a medium to communicate and exhibit the collection to

members of the public and members of the community. This led to the formulation of a

digital approach to develop the WoFG collection.

Because the WoFG was a self-initiated ‘grass-root’ endeavour, the gathering was

seen as a particularly valued partner by the Museum. They provided unique experiential

knowledge, instantiated both in objects and stories. The involvement of the Museum as

the cultural institution in the partnership was intentionally kept in equal engagement with

the WoFG community. Such guiding principles were largely based on participatory

action research philosophies, which saw the community as a knowledgeable partner, the

researchers as collaborators, with a primary goal to contribute to the betterment of the

community in context (Nyden, 1997; McKay and Marshall, 2001).

Structuration Theory and its Application

Because of the technological involvement in the project, it is necessary to examine the

role and concept of the digital collection working within the dynamics of the community.

We explore this by using structuration theory.

4

In the study of the social realities of information technology, there are broadly two

traditions: the assumption of social reality as subjective or objective (Orlikowoski and

Robey, 1991). This opposition in theory is reflected in the assumption of social systems

(of which information technologies are part) as the result of ‘meaningful human

behaviour’, representing social realities as subjective; while the other focuses on the

organisational aspects of social systems, independent of and constraining human actions,

representing social realities as being objective (Bhaskar, c.f. Orlikowoski and Robey,

1991). Research assuming the subjectivity of social systems focuses on the subjective

human experiences, interpretation of them, and elements of human behaviour modifying

the social world.

On the other hand, the contrasting view of objectivism focuses on the definitions and

properties of institutional elements which shape social systems, and through this process,

provides explanations for their influences on human actions and relationships. Giddens

asserted that the grounds of mutual exclusiveness between subjectivism and objectivism is

flawed and therefore developed the theory of structuration to accommodate the two

traditions. Structuration theory views the subjectivity and objectivity of social realities as

equally important and is therefore used as a fundamental principle in our concept of UCD.

According to structuration theory, the cumulative effect of people’s living and

working within social frameworks is the production and reproduction of culture. The

cultural context is generated and regenerated through the interplay of action and structure.

Social structures both support and constrain the endeavours of individuals, communities

and societies. This is also referred to as the duality of structure (Giddens, 1986), which

sees that the institutional properties of social systems are created by human actions, and in

turn shape future actions. It recognises that ‘man actively shapes the world he lives in at

the same time as it shapes him’ (Giddens, 1984).

Reflecting the same principles, the explicit creation and use of content and stories in

the digital collection draws on similar paradoxes. The use of information systems,

however exhaustive in its process of design, imposes certain forms of structure on the

communities of users. Yet this process of design must also call on the human actions

shaping the eventual structure of information systems. It is this engagement and

involvement of users that the paper is addressing; the relationship between community

actions and how they eventually shape social structures that are continually being

negotiated by cultural institutions and their communities. Many information systems

researchers argue for the case of iterative design (Carroll, 2000; Preece, 2002) which

could be seen as a way to factor in the effects of human actions – but more critical for

cultural institutions is the importance of factoring actions in a way which would reflect

the cumulative actions of communities as a whole, and incorporating this in the design

methodologies of information systems, services, and workspaces. As Rose and Scheepers

(2001) pointed out, while the use of structuration theory to theorise the field of

information systems and its empirical scenarios is not new, there is little effort in using

the theory to influence the field in practice. Structuration theory is a complex one which

cannot be adapted unless in relevant contexts.

5

The Duality of Structure

Perhaps one of the most important application of this theory to any information system

lies in the recognition of structure and agency as ‘duality’ – making clear the distinctions

between structure and agency yet recognising them as dependent upon each other

iteratively. The application of this theory recognises that the structural properties of

social systems impose themselves as influencing mediums and at the same time, outcomes

of the social practices they ‘recursively organise’ (Giddens, 1984, pp 25). These

dimensions are illustrated in the well-known diagram as below (figure 1):

Structure signification domination legitimation

Modality interpretive

scheme facility norm

Interaction communication power sanction

Figure 1: Dimensions of the duality of structure (Giddens, 1984)

As illustrated in figure 1, social structure and human interaction are broken down into

three columns. Each structure and interaction are then associated with each other

recursively via the linking modalities. For example, as humans communicate, they use

interpretive schemes to help them make sense of their interaction; at the same time these

interactions change or reproduce the same interpretive schemes that are embedded in

structures as signification. The facility used to allocate resources is manifested in the

wielding of power, which in turn produces and reproduces facilities influencing social

structures of domination. Norms on the other hand, referred to also as moral codes;

provide sanctions for human interactions, which ultimately also produce legitimation

within structures.

Orlikowski and Robey (1991) have done much work in theorising aspects of

information systems using structuration theory. According to them, ‘in its constituted

nature – information technology is the social product of subjective human action within

specific structural and cultural contexts – and its constitutive role – information

technology is simultaneously an objective set of rules and resources involved in mediating

(facilitating and constraining) human action, and thus hence contributing to the creation,

recreation and transformation of these contexts’.

For information systems, they are forgotten as often as they are remembered in the

conduct of everyday life, and have long since overflowed their original ambit of the

workplace to include almost all other aspects of living. So extensive are the potentials of

information systems in the current state of the world that the term ‘information systems’

has become too diverse a concept to be captured in any short definition. Information

systems – when considered as an object of study – require constantly renewed effort at

6

definition depending on context. It is now a reality of the techno-social condition that

people need to grapple continuously with the multiple personae of ‘information’ and

‘information systems’ while interacting with them to fulfil their everyday activities.

Clearly this interaction with information systems while influencing them to accomplish

perceived everyday tasks needs to be accounted for. Orlikowoski (1992) further explores

the structurational model with information technology. This is shown in figure 2.

Figure 2: Structurational model of technology (Orlikowoski, 1992)

The recursive nature of technology based on structuration theory is reflected in the

structurational properties of technologies as being created and changed by human action;

but also used by humans to accomplish actions. This is combined with a hermeneutic

view of the interpretive flexibility inherent in technology.

The Knowledge Commons

It is necessary at this point to explore the construct for our study; what we refer to as

the knowledge commons. Derived from the historical commons, the commons as defined

by Benkler (2003) generally are ‘institutional spaces, in which we can practice a

particular type of freedom – freedom from the constraints we normally accept as

necessary preconditions to functional markets’. Beagle (1999) also defines the

information commons as two halves: the composition of physical space, and the virtual

composition of resources and values. The term of the ‘commons’ therefore is used to

refer to the infusion of digital technologies and resources with physical space and

resources to be used freely by communities (MacWhinnie, 2003; Hales, Rea and Siegler,

2000; Beagle, 1999; Bailey and Tierney, 2002; Bollier, 2004; Cowgill, Beam and Wess,

2001; Lukasik, 2000). Within this context, the importance of cultural institutions to the

protection of the commons cannot be clearer as they fulfil their mission to serve

a technology as a product of human agency

b technology as a medium of human action

c institutional conditions of interaction with technology

d institutional consequences of interaction with technology Human agents

a b

Technology

d

c

Institutional properties

7

community needs by preserving resources that seek to define those communities, facilitate

relationships within the communities, and make the resources available free from market

constraints. The commons can be a distressingly messy concept, subject to many

different interpretations by various disciplines, institutions, and academics. Before we go

any further, let us first establish a working definition of the knowledge commons in the

context of this paper. We refer to figure 3, a drawing made in Mexico by Quim Gil, who

was inspired by rural life of certain states such as Chiapas (Claude, 2002).

Figure 3: The Commons by Gil (Claude, 2002)

Though this is a representation of the traditional historical commons, it brings

together essential elements of the knowledge commons we use here. There exists, at a

base level, resources that brings about inspiration, creativity, and action within the

community. In Gil’s impression, this is represented by the sun, and water and everything

built on the earth. The sustainability of the community is ensured through grass, other

plants, and animals; skills and cooperation by individuals and between individuals

improve the community as a whole; while discussions, art and leisure ensures a healthy

and happy community.

The commons may appear to be a somewhat idealistic state of affairs – open only for

criticism. In fact, Hardin (1968) describes the commons as a ‘tragedy’; a state that sets

itself up for disaster. His rationale is based on the assumption that ‘every man is locked

8

into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit – in a world that is

limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best

interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons

brings ruin to all.’ (Claude, 2002).

There are two inherent flaws in this ‘tragedy’ in the context of the case study

discussed here. One, it rests on the assumption that the use of a scarce resource in the

commons leads to degradation, or depletion of the resource. Indeed, this may very well

be the case if we look upon information as a scarcity. Which may very well be – in some

cases. However, this is where the nature and use of information gets interesting.

Information must be distinguished from knowledge. Information, in the form of text,

images, and bits of data whether on physical or digital mediums, are used for the purpose

of deriving knowledge. While information as a scarcity could deplete, knowledge as a

resource, ‘has the characteristic of not being degraded when used, but rather to increase in

value’ (Drucker, c.f. Hellstrom, 2001).

The second inherent flaw, as Levine (2002) pointed out, was Hardin’s (1968)

assumption that the commons was uncontrollable and unorganised. Indeed, if it were

assumed to be left to be uncontrolled, unorganised, and left to deplete by individuals

seeking personal gain, it could very well be a tragedy. Levine (2002) suggested that this

was only one of the approaches to the commons. To prevent the tragedy, he suggested

state, non-profit, or voluntary ownerships of the commons by the concerned community.

Such ownerships allow for the management of the commons.

The case of the Museum’s cultural partnership with the Women on Farms Gathering

community and the creation and use of the digital collection is therefore essential to

overcome the acclaimed tragedy Hardin (1968) spoke of. As mentioned in earlier

discussions, the involvement of the Museum in the community started not with the first

gathering; but only when the collection and the community grew to a level of significance.

Even after this institutional involvement, the partnership between the community and the

Museum was kept at equal engagement; cautious to not impose institutional boundaries on

the community. Congruent with Levine’s (2002) suggestion, this partnership reflects

voluntary ownership of the commons by the community (i.e. Women on Farms in

Victoria) while the Museum took up a neutral and central responsibility as a cultural

institution to ensure the sustainability of the resources and collections in the community.

The collection was developed around stories – both written and auditory, and are

organised around the annual gatherings of the Women on Farms community. Each

gathering was filled with stories – about the gatherings, life stories of farm women

brought to the gatherings, and stories about the objects collected at these gatherings. The

stories museums tell are often influenced by the nature of their collections (Dale, 2003).

Traditionally, this has been done through using objects for exploring meaning and

memories; but Gurian (1999) also highlights that this is a significant shift towards

centring collections on stories. This is a shift also towards an adoption of a people-

centred methodology by museums (Dale, 2003). The adoption of this methodology serves

towards the inclusion of memories, photographs, video and audio recollections of the

9

community in the collection. It is this focus that has been used to develop the digital

collection, contributing to the whole picture of the knowledge commons. Figure 4 shows

a screen capture of a page from the collection.

<FIGURE 4>: SCREEN CAPTURE OF GATHERING PAGE

A Sense of Place: Intersections within the Commons

An important aspect in the picture of the commons according to Gil (see figure 3) is

the existence of boundaries, sometimes referred to as enclosures, that seeks to empower

the community within its spaces, but at the same time imposing certain sanctions on the

community. This duality is consistent with the third dimension of structuration theory,

where sanctions contribute to the definition of accepted norms in the community which

also gives form to the legitimate structures working within the commons. In the context

of the WoFG collection, the understanding and accepted working norms within the

community (which have been around for more than ten years) provides these sanctions

and legitimate structures defining the accessibility and structures of the collection. It is

important to highlight the role of the Museum influencing this legitimate structure, which

contributes at the same time to the norms and sanctions shaped within the community.

It should be highlighted that the establishment of boundaries within the commons is

one that is continuously negotiated within the community, partners, and institutions and

powers acting in and outside the commons. In this negotiation understanding is reclaimed

in the community – leading also to the cultivation of identity for the community. Indeed,

this is clear in hindsight as we examine the responses to the stories displayed in the

collection. The responses reflect a reclaimation of identity and understanding in the

community, and in the process extends its citizenship to people out of the usual

community. This reclamation has at once, an empowering and constraining effect of the

collective memories of the community. While it empowers the community by providing a

greater sense of belonging as a collective community, by the negotiation of boundaries it

also constrains the community with regards to resources and people who fall outside the

boundaries.

At the same time, communication and interactions within the community are

exchanged within the commons using interpretative schemes of the community, embedded

in structures of signification working in the community. Such structures of signification

are manifested by the stories and objects collected in the digital collection. While this

may be apparent, they come about only through intergenerational communication using

existing interpretative schemes of the community-Museum partnership. Again, it must be

remembered that there is duality in this negotiation of exchange – and structures are as

influential and influenced by the existing interpretative scheme while the latter would also

be shaped by the communication and shaping the nature of communication within the

community. This dynamic interplay of communication and signification moderated by

interpretative schemes in the community is powerful in painting part of the picture of the

10

knowledge commons, where people in the community interact in public discussions and

social spaces, giving rise to signification of common resources owned by all in the

community.

Again, this intersection and interplay within the commons adds on to a sense of place

for the community. As the digital collection seeks resources and stories from people in

the community, meanings are constructed and established within the commons through

the sharing of stories, memories, and objects. Through the intergenerational reviews,

editing, and publishing of these resources, they reach a certain level of signification and

knowledge are eventually revealed and represented. The representations of resources,

memories, and identities of the community are manifested tangibly in the access of the

digital collection; but more importantly, the process eliciting this outcome lies in the

dynamic interaction between members of the community.

Levels of power demonstrated by interaction are manifested by the facilities used to

allocate resources, and in turn they produce and reproduce facilities influencing structures

of domination. Within the digital collection, modalities have been developed as facilities

to allocate resources to be accessed and used by the community (e.g. stories about certain

objects in the collection). Such facilities influence and are influenced by structures of

domination and levels of power (for example, certain stories are restricted or approved for

public access by selected members of the community). This provides a dynamic interface

to understanding the picture of communication and domination within the commons.

The relevance of structuration theory applied to technology (in our case, a digital

collection) and its intersection with the knowledge commons is an important one as we

explore how this intersection provides a sense of place for the Women on Farms

Gathering community. In doing so, we discuss how this intersection can work to enable

the reclaiming of understanding; construction, revealing and representation of knowledge,

and over time, the cultivation of memories within a community.

Conclusion & Future Work

The paper has discussed, using a case study, a partnership between the Museum as a

cultural institution and a community. In the context of the knowledge commons, we

explore how this interaction can be leveraged to produce benefits for all parties. We first

explore the applications of structuration theory to technologies, and then in doing so,

examine the relevance of a digital collection working within the knowledge commons.

Such intersections leads to the development of a sense of place for the community,

through reclaiming understanding and memories, and construction, revealing and

representing knowledge for the community. This is an important picture which comes

about only through situating the digital collection in the context of the commons. This is

still an ongoing project and immediate work is pending; largely monitoring the direct and

indirect benefits of the information system in the community, iterating the design and

development of the tool using the developed vision of the design methodology, and

evaluating the impacts of the information system in both the community and Museum.

11

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the members of the Women on Farms Heritage Group,

and the Museum of Victoria for their inputs and participation in the project. None of this

would also have been possible without the generous funding of Monash University,

Arts/IT Small Grants scheme. Last but not lease, we would like to also express our

gratitude to Mr Nigel Wong, of Solutions by Sentient for his valuable contributions to the

project.

References

Allmang, N., Liu, R. and Sanders, S. (2005) Building an information commons at the

National Institute of Standards and Technology Library: A case study [Online].

Retrieved 11 May 2005 from

http://libres.curtin.edu.au/libres15n1/Allmang_Liu_2005_01_31.htm

Bailey, R. and Tierney, B. (2002) Information commons redux: concept, evolution, and

transcending the tragedy of the commons. The Journal of Academic Librarianship,

28 (5), 277-286.

Beagle, D. (1999) Conceptualising an information commons. The Journal of Academic

Librarianship, 25 (2), 82-89.

Benkler, Y. (2003) The political economy of Commons. Upgrade, 4 (3), 6-9.

Bollier, D. (2004) Why we must talk about the Information Commons. HeinOnline, 96

267-282.

Carroll, J. M. (2000). Making use: scenario-based design of human-computer

interactions. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Claude, G. (2002) Goatherds in pinstripes. Mute, (23) 33-37

Cowgill, A., Beam, J. and Wess, L. (2001) Implementing an Information Commons in a

university library. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27 (6), 432-439.

Dale, L. (2003) Stories and storytelling: a cultural partnership between Museum Victoria

and the Victorian Women on Farms Gathering. In O’Hagan, R; Alston, M and

Spriggs, S. (Eds) Setting the Agenda for Rural Women: Research Directions (pp 70-

87). Wagga Wagga: Centre for Rural Social Research.

Giddens, A. (1984) The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Giddens, A. (1986) The constitution of society. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Gurian, E.H. (1999) What is the object of this exercise? A meandering exploration of the

many meanings of objects in museums. In Daedalus: Journal of the American

Academy of Arts and Sciences. 128(3), 163-184.

Hales, S., Rea, D. and Siegler, M. 2000 Creating a Technology Desk in an Information

Commons In Proceedings of the SIGUCCS Conference on User Services Richmond,

Virginia, USA: ACM.

Hardin, G. (1968) The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 62 1243-1248.

12

Hellstrom, T. (2003) Governing the virtual academic commons. Research Policy, 32 391-

401.

Levine, P. (2002) Symposium: Democracy in the electronic era. The Good Society, 11

(3), 3-9.

Lukasik, S. J. (2000) Protecting the global information commons. Telecommunications

Policy, 24 519-531.

MacWhinnie, L. A. (2003) The Information Commons: The Academic Library Of The

Future. Libraries and the Academy, 3 (2), 241-257.

McKay, J. and Marshall, P. (2001) The dual imperatives of action research. Information

Technology and People, 14(1) 46-59.

Nyden, P., Figert, A., Shibley, M., and Burrows, D. (1997) Building Community: Social

Science in Action. California: Pine Forge Press.

Orlikowski, W. J. and Robey, D. (1991) Information technology and the structuring of

organizations. Information Systems Research, 2(2) 143-169.

Orlikowski, W.J. (1992) The duality of technology: rethinking the concept of technology

in organizations, Organization Science, 3(3), 398-472.

Preece, J., Sharp, H. and Rogers, Y. (2002) Interaction design: beyond human-computer

interaction. New York: J. Wiley & Sons.

Rose, J. and R. Scheepers. (2001) Structuration theory and information systems

development; frameworks for practice. In Proceeding of the European Conference

on Information Systems Development (pp 217-231). Slovenia: University of

Maribar.

Cultivating the women on farms gathering community: A digital approach.

Documents

Transcript of Cultivating the women on farms gathering community: A digital approach.