Spotlight MacArthur Foundation

1: Brad Lewis at 5:39 pm on Thursday, August 23, 2007

1.  What are reasonable expectations for philanthropic activities within virtual worlds?

If we view philanthropy as contributions of time, talent and treasure (as we do at Learn and Serve America - http://www.learnandserve.gov), then service-learning is philanthropy in action and while it sometimes includes contributions of treasure, the more lasting projects that have greater impact most often bring to bear participants’ time and talents.

Service-learning, in its simplest form includes: preparation, action, reflection and recognition of the participants in a method that combines service to community and intentional learning outcomes. (For more info see: http://www.servicelearning.org) This can take place anywhere.

It may also be helpful to remember that virtual worlds have some important, and potentially useful, differences from real life, but that they also are populated - at the end of the mouse - by real people who live in the real world. Therefore, to the extent that their online activities can support real life action that addresses needs, there is greater benefit for those in disadvantaged situations and empowerment of the real people behind the philanthropy, at the end of the day.

Therefore, in terms of what is reasonable to expect from people in virtual worlds it seems that it is no less than what is achievable in real life and in some ways, perhaps, virtual worlds have the potential to enhance real life service-learning activities. So, one could envision preparation taking place in online simulations where participants brainstorm their service activities and seek resources to bring to bear on their chosen project. Facilitators (often teachers and community workers) could bring together people in real-time from far flung distances in a more experiential and visual setting to work together to implement and reflect on those projects over a greater area which may benefit a larger segment of their communities.

In this way real people’s time, talents and other contributions may be afforded greater reach, a larger community of service-learners, and while operating in many ways virtually, still have a great impact on real people in the real world. It may be reasonable to expect that virtual worlds can contribute to the common good now and well into the future.

2. How are you defining both success and failure for your initiative?

This is an evolving answer in my work. Right now, taking steps to initiate more use of electronic media for philanthropy in the government sector - in my personal opinion - is a good thing, often. Understanding that the government sector moves slowly and does not turn as deftly as others, and taking into account that folks in the technology sector are often leading, if not bleeding edge leaders, there is an obvious culture clash.

However, there is growing evidence of government participation in virtual world/digital media initiatives such as the traditional web presence and listserv use, and then more leading edge efforts such as NOAA’s (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration) and the CDC’s (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) islands in Second Life. Learn and Serve America is using social networking technology to connect young people who are in some of our programs so that they can network over a “do-it-yourself” social networking site called NING. The foundation world is making better use of these media, but others are covering that.

The bottom line for Learn and Serve America is involving more people in service-learning to address this country’s pressing needs. To the extent that participation in virtual worlds moves the needle on that focus, our involvement is positive. The counter balance in the government sector, in addition to our deep dedication to the public trust and concern for using the taxpayer’s dollars well, is the possible risk factor. In many parts of the government sector, there is - and rightly so - great transparency. Therefore, when getting into any new venture, one of the tests that is usually applied is the “Front Page of the Newspaper Test” which asks if anyone at the agency might be uncomfortable at the agencies’ work appearing in the headlines. If there is a potential downside, there is a risk and that must be taken into consideration, as decision makers discuss and take action.

2: Rik Panganiban at 7:23 pm on Friday, August 24, 2007

Lucy has provided a good context to examine the role of philanthropy in virtual worlds.  If I might be a bit negative, I think it might be helpful to begin with “what do we consider failure?”

It seems to me that one likely form of failure would be to simply do what you are already doing, but do it “virtually.” I.e. looking at virtual worlds the way that television producers used to look at TV as “radio with pictures.”

I have been observing and working with a number of non-profit and for-profit entities that have tried to translate their work into virtual worlds. I’ve seen lots of fitful, painful, ill-considered startups that the philanthropic community should try and learn from.

Here are some ways that philathropic institutions could get off to the wrong start:

* Create non-dynamic, un-staffed virtual offices
* Pasting virtual billboards everywhere extolling your mission and work
* Brag bout how you are the “first” to do something virtually
* Ignore the existing virtual community and try and re-create it with your own branding
* Fund existing central players that you already work with, instead of widening your net to outreach to other groups already active in virtual worlds
* Expect one staff person to be your “virtual guy/gal” and have the rest of the staff carry on as normal
* If any of these describe your virtual world activities, I think it’s safe to say that you’ve failed.

The encouraging part is that this is a frontier medium, and failure is the grounds for new learning and refocusing of energies and strategy. Virtual worlds are nothing if not adaptable and ever-changing, which your institution should aim for as well.

3: Radhika Gajjala from Bowling Green State University at 11:46 am on Saturday, August 25, 2007

I think Rik raises some excellent points.

While there are many merits to doing all this “virtually” we need to continue our projects very carefully when we think in terms of what it means to be “successful” in such projects. Below I list talking points

1]  With increasing emphasis on outcomes measurements in the short term - it may become hard to talk about success itself outside of a framework that disadvantages certain groups that we may want to work with online and offline.

2] Why are we coming to virtual worlds to engage in these projects? Is it because the communities and populations that need philanthropic intervention and collaborations are already online and we need to reach them there - or is it because they need to be “brought” online for various reasons. I suspect - based on which groups in the world we are talking about - the audiences that these groups need to reach and who they are etc - the answers will be a little bit of both.

3] However there is a risk that now - if we are not careful in HOW we articulate the connections between various contexts and literacy and access requirements that we actually only engage with a layer of needs that can afford (economically and culturally) to appear in our virtual matrix.

4] Thus in some senses philanthropy online is a contradiction - yet necessary because the contradictions are far more nuanced than simple definitions of “digital divides” traditionally laid out can address. I suspect as we engage in more and more hands on activities in immersive “virtual” environments, we may encounter complexities and unexpected issues that will make us rethink what it means to do virtual philanthropy successfully.

5] Staying true to the concept of philanthropy and outreach will be a challenge. Not getting caught up in technophilia will be a challenge. Seeing skills and literacies as very quickly shifting will be a challenge.

6] For instance, mere teaching of software or engaging one virtual environment would not be enough “digital literacy” - rather such literacies would involve knowing offline contexts in detail in addition to understanding the self-learning tactics and intuitive understandings of virtual contexts so that those of us hoping to work on digital outreach programs ourselves will need to be continually on our toes virtually, conceptually internationally and cross-contextually in addition to continual re-skilling ourselves in the latest digital skills.

hope to have more contributions and dialogues,

r

4: Alanagh Recreant from Uthango Social Investments at 7:29 am on Sunday, August 26, 2007

Kindly allow me to add a perspective to this excellent topic from our experience in asset-based community development in Africa - now directly and strategically linked to SecondLife.
We would like to present our own organization as a very short preliminary case study to contribute to the global dimension of the discussion. Forgive me the personal tone of the contribution and the very specific, honest references to our organization - in the context of it being an example of the topic in practice:
I appreciate it when people ask us WHY questions that challenge the fundamental reasoning for our decisions and call us to be accountable as a public benefit organization. We have been asked the WHY question on a weekly (even daily!) basis ever since we entered Second Life in March 2007. This trend has intrigued me as it actually highlights the tension and perceived (!) disconnect for ordinary virtual residents between contribution and meaning in our RL projects in Africa and their SL experience with us and our Virtual Africa initiative. One such a question early April that stays with me, was “Why are you spending your time here, when you can help poor people instead?”
We have become, if you may, our own best case study on what we are attempting to do by being part of the metaverse revolution. It has also enabled us to clearly define our SL mission with integrity, and determine its scope and impact in our broader organization. It does seem that Uthango is the first NGO registered and based in Africa with a strategic presence in Second Life. Our expectations was certainly unreasonable when we entered this exciting world! We looked at the turn-over in USD$ and (being under-resource) were unrealistically enthusiastic to ‘raise funds’ for our real life projects waiting in the ranks… This expectation was quickly leveled with SL realities of existing brilliant(!) initiatives and valid causes of well-known, international agencies and a steep learning curve. To promote your own African track-record of local delivery to communities in need would have taken too much PR energies and resources in our estimation, so we set with a strategy to add value to the virtual world instead - with spin-offs to RL. The more reasonable expectation for our organisation has been to collaborate with other lateral-thinking individuals, but also, to develop SL/RL initiatives and very specific projects that have meaning for our beneficiaries in Africa.
Today, we recognize that we are in this virtual world to collaborate, converse and connect with innovative companies, individuals and early-adopting organizations. More importantly, we are establishing an orientation and SL/RL gateway (Virtual Africa) with an immersive intercultural African experience for new and existing virtual residents.
In our first life, Uthango Social Investments is based in Cape Town, South Africa with the sweeping vision to sustainably eradicate poverty through access to opportunities. Our opportunity centres based in communities will be far more important to provide access to the economy than Virtual Africa. However, both initiatives have potential to work well together - and for us it is no more an either or, but we have incorporated both strategies. There is need for a philosophical debate about the criteria of success and failure in terms of philanthropy in virtual worlds. However, for our organisation, we have distilled our collective thinking into one reflective question: Does our activities in SL directly enhance our RL projects? And HOW?
Allow me two examples of how we are attempting to build trust and relevance: Firstly, when we embarked on our African Roundtable initiative to have discussions about challenges and ingenuity within Africa, we duplicated the same process in real life and facilitated roundtable discussions in Guguletu, Cape Town. We were able to relate knowledge between cultures, and with the help of appropriate technology and resources, we may be ready to create (even more appropriately) direct interaction and discussion. A second example: a company approached us recently to be involved in our SL initiative and have an agreement between us for Virtual Africa. We were excited about the possibilities, but had to take a step back and ask the international company how they would like to engage with communities IN Africa to bring direct benefit. Now, we will have an integrated housing project for 2000 families living in extreme poverty linked directly to our SL initiative in October 2007.
On entering SL, the temptation was enormous to ‘change your target group beneficiaries’ to better serve the in-world residents. For Uthango, it would have meant that our outward-looking advocacy and educational aims exceed the local intervention in the form of time, resources and grant-seeking. We opted to rather integrate the SL environment and develop SL/RL projects that are appropriate for virtual worlds.
In our experience, the quicker the adoption of a company policy related to the WHY (to the reason for being part of virtual worlds) the easier it will be to inspire staff, volunteers, partners and beneficiaries. Building trust and confidence in accountable delivery is everything for an NGO with limited resources in Africa. We are constantly asking ourselves HOW to do this with integrity…
Second Life provides us with some of the tools to do build trust, but since we stepped into the metaverse, we have also discovered some gaps: One of the main issues that we have picked up is the lack of verification of charities, NGOs and fundraisers operating within these worlds. We have specific ideas how to make a difference in this area and, together with the Habitat Trust for Wildlife, a 501(c)3 company in the USA, we have started a peer-driven verification group as first step: We remained concerned about the many ‘pseudo-charities’ in virtual worlds that exploit residents for personal gain. These ‘enterprising’ individuals really set the scene for discouraging well-meaning, giving residents that could make a real difference in communities across the world. We need to make a plan to increase the success of philanthropic initiatives in virtual worlds by verifying legitimate efforts globally.
In summary, our definition of success and failure for our SL initiatives is linked directly to the direct and specific value added to our real life projects. This is an ongoing, reflective process and has much more to do with (1) the entrenched learning and innovative culture of an organization, and (2) the pragmatic application of defined values and principles in new environments.
We hope to continue using our own experiences as a catalyst for healthy dialogue between more civil society organizations from Africa coming into virtual worlds. Coming in from Africa is a topic all on its own - and trust me, we have had our share of perceptions and unfortunate double-standards about being an African organization. In a global platform like SL, we will need to think very creatively about the ways in which we accommodate and welcome international and local organizations and deal with their expectations and prejudices.
Thank you so much for this brilliant topic and opportunity to engage. We hope that, by next year, we will have many more representatives from Africa at SLCC…

5: Lorri Mon from Florida State University, College of Information at 11:51 am on Sunday, August 26, 2007

A key aspect of success in the scientific context is reproducibility - can your results be achieved again? In philanthropy funding digital learning projects, this might be seen as whether a virtual worlds innovation continues to have a life beyond the funding period.  I think for a virtual worlds learning innovation to truly achieve change, it must include some way of creating ‘change agents.’  For example, creating an innovative learning experience for a group of kids briefly enriches and empowers just that one group of kids.  Creating an innovative and empowering learning experience for adults who teach kids - teachers in the schools, librarians in the school media centers and in the public libraries - creates ‘change agents’ who keep on reproducing these educational experiences with generations of kids, sustaining and continuing the innovative learning that has been created.

6: Radhika Gajjala from Bowling Green State University at 1:32 pm on Sunday, August 26, 2007

Lorri - I would like to ask what would be meant by reproducible results in this instance?

Can we or should we be able to reproduce certain context specific successes across contexts? If so - would this be a positive reproduction or a form of cultural (racial, gendered and economic even) hierarchy that we unintentionally set up.

I do agree that some things need to be reproducable - dont get me wrong - but the focus on reproducability itself then creates the need for us to start scrutinizing our goals and processes within contexts - VERY CAREFULLY.

Thus criteria for defining success cannot be stated from only one vantage point but from multiple locations where outreach work is being done.

just my 52 lindens for this morning!

r

7: Radhika Gajjala from Bowling Green State University at 2:04 pm on Sunday, August 26, 2007

Excuse my loooong post.

____

Alanagh,

I have been following the threads following your posting on SLED and had to smile at the exchanges that occured there.

I am glad you posted here.

I am of course amused that when those of us who claim to work in third-world and “developing” contexts come online with our projects and concerns - WE are immediately questioned about why we are here and not there “on the field” - when in actuality we are and need to be in both places!

So when this sort of question is posed - who is it posed to and who is posing it? Why are they online spending their time “here”?

“One such a question early April that stays with
me, was “Why are you spending your time here, when you can help poor people
instead?”

Sounds almost like the questions we are sometimes asked for living and working in US - why are you here when you should be there working with the poor in your countries?

My question to them is - how are these causes going to voiced in global dialogues if we are not here? Do we and those we work with in these underrepresented contexts not deserve to have a say in how their lives are shaped by processes of economic and social globalization?

Because whether they get to have a say or not -
Globalization proceeds to impact their lives. If they dont get to have some sort of say in these spaces - the impacts may well be negative impacts in their lives.

_______________________

There are different routes we take to being online as “philanthropists” engaged in various kinds of community based programs.

I work, research and teach both online and offline in relation to community engagement issues and socio-cultural and economic issues around globalization and community formations.

In parts of my teaching and research- I am fully online - since I teach about digital identies and computer-mediated cultures but also on global communication and issues of development, race, gender and class…

In other parts of my research and community engagment projects - I am sometimes here in NW Ohio with bi-racial communities here and “there” in rural South India.

____

I work in fully offline spaces with an NGO that works with handloom weavers in South India - and have learned to be very cautious about how I re-present them academically (in publications) and pictorially and well as in video etc formats online.

Yet I am involved in their marketing efforts (and am even trying something out on secondlife in relation to these explorations) - and of course everytime I speak of marketing their products in upper class and urban circles (whether in the “third-world” or the Western world) I am advised to set up websites and try to “tap” the export market. But in reality - the export market may not successfully sustain the livelihood of the weavers (at present) nor might it (at present) provide them with self-respect-ful representation.

That does not mean export is irrelevant - being in the market means we cannot stop dialogues with all possible marketing strategies presented to us.

___

In the NW Ohio biracial low income community that I work with offline (and which is interested in my strategically bringing them on to teen secondlife etc - and is and has been already online in myspace and other places ) the issues are different yet in some ways similar - but more on that some other time.

Bottom line - we cannot afford NOT to engage these issues in digitally mediated environments.

8: Barry Joseph from Global Kids at 10:26 pm on Monday, August 27, 2007

This online dialogue was developed, in part, to inform a Philanthropy panel at the Second Life Community Convention, which ended yesterday. To learn more about this panel, and how this and those dialogues will be analyzed in a report this fall, please visit: http://www.holymeatballs.org/2007/09/slcc_overview_of_nonprofit_and.html