Centre for Internet and Society

Response by Knowledge Commons

pranesh — 2008-09-30T15:07:50Z

Arguments on why section 4.11 of the Patents Manual needs to be modified.

1. A patent is a state granted monopoly on an invention. As with any other monopoly, a patent must be treated with great discretion, especially since this particular monopoly is bestowed by the state itself. The original intent of the patent system was to encourage disclosure by the inventor, in exchange for exclusive rights to the invention. This ensured that inventors did not take their inventions to the grave and that society could build on existing knowledge rather than re-invent the wheel. As with any other policy instrument, we need to examine whether patents meet their intended objectives.

2. In this context, the degree of patent protection in India should be seen with the following in mind:

The desirable form of IPR protection is very much a function of development. Currently, the developed economies feel they should protect their IPR and restrict their dissemination. But these same countries have historically had much more lax IPR regimes that have allowed imitation to promote more rapid industrialization. For example, the US actively encouraged copying of European innovation in the 19th century and even “nationalised” wireless patents - claiming national interest. Even late 20th century rapid developers such as Japan and South Korea benefited greatly from relatively lax patent regimes. So there is a strong case for providing less IPR protection in the development phase, especially in those areas where domestic innovation is less advanced.

There is no clear correlation between high IPR protection and innovation[1], and much historical evidence to the contrary. A significant number of studies have shown that patents are important primarily in chemicals, chemical materials and pharmaceuticals, where patents can protect specific molecules or well defined but small slices of technology. In other areas, patents tend to be relatively less important in promoting innovation.

This means that India should first identify what are its national interests and then calibrate the IPR protection accordingly. For example, in pharmaceuticals, the current national interest lies clearly in restricting patents. This is also why the Indian Parliament has taken advantage of the flexibility of TRIPs to raise the bar of what is patentable. Indeed, other countries including the US are now copying some of these measures.[2]

An important example is in the area of software where India has a major interest, and where patents are being opposed by all Small and Medium sized companies. In Europe, this opposition led to the proposed directive on software patents to be defeated overwhelmingly in the European Parliament.

3. There are now attempts being made in India to bring in software patents using either the EPO or the USPTO practice. This attempt is being supported by a small number of large international software companies, who had earlier benefited from software being free from patents and are now trying to obstruct others who are entering the field. It is not in the interest of India's software industry to have restrictive patent regime, particularly as they switch from being service providers to product developers.

4. The EPO in fact has followed much of the USPTO practice, the only area that it differs with USPTO being in the business method patenting. However, as a number of observers have pointed out, this means drafting a business method patent as a technical application: it is the form of the patent rather than its content that changes with the EPO approach. Therefore, both EPO and USPTO have erred in accepting patents that are either algorithms or methods, dressed up as software patents.

5. The crisis of the US Patent Office is well known and many critics have pointed out that the US is facing effectively a broken patent system. They have pointed out that granting patents to objects that have existed for years, or patents that are patently ridiculous, does not serve any purpose whatsoever. A case in point is US Patent 20060071122, granted for a ‘full body teleportation system’. The abstract for this reads, ‘A pulsed gravitational wave wormhole generator system that teleports a human being through hyperspace from one location to another.’ Of course, there is no functional version of this. There are innumerable examples of this kind of patent being granted. Another kind of patent that serves no useful purpose is where the patented product or process is something that has been used for years and years, and is known to the whole world, such as the wheel, or swinging on a swing.[3] This undermines the entire basis of the patent system and has the potential to cause havoc. The rapid dilution of the tripartite test of novelty, non-obviousness and utility that led to such patents being granted is finally being halted in the USA, with the US Supreme Court ruling recently that obviousness cannot be constrained by a legal formulation, and the use of common sense is necessary in determining whether a patent be granted or not.[4]

6. Courts in all parts of the world have held that subject matter which would have the practical effect of pre-empting laws of nature, abstract ideas or mathematical algorithms is ineligible for patent protection. This age-old and time-tested precedent effectively establishes the ineligibility for patent protection to laws of nature, abstract ideas and mathematical algorithms. If these could be patented, then in effect one would be patenting the tools of scientific enquiry itself, something no patent law allows as it would lead to halting scientific progress.

7. In the past, the courts have also held that regarding patentable subject that the inquiry into whether subject matter is eligible for patenting is one of substance, not form. This requires that the patent office look, not simply at the language of the patent claim to see if it recites a structure of multiple steps or components, but also at the practical effect of the claim to see if it in fact covers -- or otherwise would restrict the public’s access to -- a principle, law of nature, abstract idea, mathematical formula, mental process, algorithm or other abstract intellectual concept. Otherwise, it would make the determination of patentable subject matter depend simply on the draftsman’s art and would ill serve the principles underlying the prohibition against patents for 'ideas' or phenomena of nature. By skilled patent drafting, one should not be able to start patenting essentially abstract ideas, mental processes and newly discovered laws of nature or mathematical algorithms.

8. However, a number of patent offices, particularly the USPTO and the EPO have been granting patents recently for software also. This is without taking into consideration that all software is ultimately the expression of algorithms or mathematical methods. This has already created a situation which Tim Berners-Lee, one of the founders of the World Wide Web and director of the World Wide Web Consortium that sets global standards for the Internet, calls the biggest threat to software development.

All companies developing emerging technology are threatened by the prospect of patent licensing royalties. You could never find out what patent could possibly apply to what technology. You could never guess what things people might have the gall to say they have patented already. It really is a universal fear.’ (Tim Berners-Lee at Emerging Technologies Conference at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, September 29, 2004.)

9. In the US, recent studies have shown that the only sector of the economy in which royalties are more than legal costs are pharmaceuticals[5]. In their recently published book, Bessen and Meurer have analysed the numbers in terms of revenues generated from patents as against cost of filing, maintaining and defending patents in courts. In their view, the data shows that except in the case of pharmaceuticals, patents generate far more litigation costs than revenue. The numbers are clear: domestic litigation costs --16 billion dollars in 1999 alone -- was about twice the revenue for patents. Even in this, almost two thirds of the revenue was from pharmaceuticals and chemicals. Worse, the more innovative the company, more was the likelihood of it being sued. The software and business method patents fared the worst, with costs far outstripping the benefits of patenting. The sector with the worst royalty to costs record is software, with most high technology firms being opposed now to software patents.

10. Apart from the reasons given above, the software patents have the problem of being ill defined and capable of very broad scope. It is difficult to build around as is possible in other areas of technology, precisely because of the vagueness of the claims. Novelty and inventive step is again much more difficult to disprove unlike pharmaceuticals, where it is the molecule with a clearly defined structure which is being patented. No company in the world can conduct patent searches for software, given the number of such patents being filed and the inability to identify the defining characteristic of the product being patented. Therefore, the provision of copyright is more than adequate for protecting IPR in software.

11. The other problem with software patents is that any large software project uses a large number of software components. Any one of them can be subjected litigation claiming patent violations. This would open the company to costly lawsuits and against the interests of all but the biggest global corporations who have deep pockets.

12. Today, even companies such as IBM, Sun, Texas Instruments, CISCO have joined the growing Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) community opposing software patents. Most of these companies have publicly stated that they are filing patents only for defensive purposes. Indian law also bars software patents. With regards to proprietary versus FOSS, India needs to analyse and define what should be its trajectory. There is enough grounds to believe that if Indian companies want to move from services model to a product model, software patents and proprietary software will not be the route to take instead, India should promote FOSS, as Brazil and China are doing.

13. Apart from the lack of natural reason for granting software patents, there are potential adverse consequences to the Indian economy in other areas should such patents are granted. The current explosion in bio-pharmaceutical development is increasingly dependent on the ability to perform large-scale data mining from huge amounts of genetic-genomic data. Highly specialised software is developed from pre-existing 'generic' software by bio-informatic technologists for this purpose. Allowing the patenting of the generic basic software will increase the costs of data mining substantially, and will have an extremely adverse impact on the competitive ability of small, knowledge-based entrepreneurial ventures of the kind that India excels in.

14. In India, it has been considered patents should be granted only when public good demands granting of such state protected monopolies. This was the practice also in the UK and the US. It is still the basis of the practice in most countries. It is only in the last few decades that the US, followed by the UK, Japan and now the European Patent Office has tried to change the interpretation of their Patents Acts to expand the scope of patentability. This attempt to enlarge the scope is from their national interest as they hold the largest number of patents. Therefore, their belief that strengthening the patent regime internationally will help their companies to build worldwide monopolies.

15. It is not in India’s national interest or in the interests of its people to expand the scope of state protected monopolies through expanding the patent scope. India’s national interest is best served by restricting the scope of such monopolies. Therefore, the patent regime in India should work on the presumption that patents are to be given only when there is a decisive case for patents. This has been the basis of the Indian Patents Act and is in tune with fundamentals of such legislation world over. It is only the deviation in patent interpretation that has produced a scenario where business methods, software and also mathematical methods are also being patented.

16. The US Supreme Court has now been correcting some of the excesses that has occurred in the US patents interpretation by the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit (CAFC). We see no reason why India should change it understanding of patentability following in the footsteps of the US and the EPO and subsequently need to correct such excesses.

17. The US Supreme Court had ruled earlier that Supreme Court has held that patent protection may not be granted for “laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981). The case has frequently been misread as a basis for patenting subject matter that is abstract and intangible. In fact, however, Diehr confirms that intangible subject matter may not be patented, whether directly or indirectly through artful claim drafting.

18. Diehr also re-affirmed its holding in Gottschalk v.Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972), that algorithms, or procedures for solving mathematical problems—the building blocks of computer programs—cannot be patented. Likewise, it reaffirmed its holding in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1984), that an algorithm for computing a number that served as an alarm limit was not patentable by adding insignificant post-solution activity added to a unpatentable principle to a patenable process. Diehr reaffirmed that only tangible processes – in this case vulcanizing rubber-- and not abstract ideas are patentable.

19. In alignment with Benson and Flook, the US Supreme Court in Diehr held that structures or processes must, when considered as a whole, perform functions intended to be covered by patent law in order to be eligible for patent protection. Diehr followed and upheld the core holdings of both Benson and Flook.

20. The US Supreme Court therefore has not pronounced on software patents after Diehr and therefore Diehr still remains the definitive interpretation of software patents in the US.

21. The CAFC deviated from the Supreme Court ruling in Diehr in At&T vs Excel Communications and in State Street Bank. There, CAFC held that though abstract ideas were not patentable, they could be patented if they produced “a useful, concrete and tangible result.” This was inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s earlier rulings on this matter.

22. In a number of recent cases, the US Supreme Court has overruled the CAFC. In all these cases, the US Supreme Court has narrowed the definition of what is patentable. We have already quoted the KSR Vs Teleflex case in this context.

23. It is in this context that the CAFC is revisiting the State Street and AT&T Vs Excel Communications sitting in en banc. Significantly, it has posed the following questions on which it wants to re-examine the two cases. These are:

(1) Whether claim 1 of the [Bilski] patent application claims patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101?

(2) What standard should govern in determining whether a process is patent-eligible subject matter under section 101?

(3) Whether the claimed subject matter is not patent-eligible because it constitutes an abstract idea or mental process; when does a claim that contains both mental and physical steps create patent-eligible subject matter?

(4) Whether a method or process must result in a physical transformation of an article or be tied to a machine to be patent-eligible subject matter under section 101?

(5) Whether it is appropriate to reconsider State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998), and AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc., 172 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999), in this case and, if so, whether those cases should be overruled in any respect?

24. Obviously, the US Courts are re-thinking software patents in the light of its difficulty in establishing clear boundaries and tying all future innovation in a morass of litigation. With patent trolls entering the picture, it has become clear to the industry as well as the larger public in the US that the patent system is not being well served by software patents. The CAFC en banc review is only one such indication. Patent reforms are also being discussed in US Congress to address such issues.

25. Therefore, we would urge the patent office to take cognizance off the above and reconsider the paras in the Draft Patent Manual that allows software patents if they are seen to have technical applications.

26. We believe that the lawmakers have done their job and have defined clearly that software patents per se are not admissible in India. It is now incumbent on the patent office to make this clear and not admit such patents.

----

US CASES

Diamond v. Diehr,

450 U.S. 175 (1981)

Gottschalk v. Benson,

409 U.S. 63 (1972)

Parker v. Flook,

437 U.S. 584 (1984)

Alappat,

33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994)

State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc.,

149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998), 525 U.S. 1093 (1999)

AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc.,

172 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999),

KSR International v. Teleflex

127 US 1727 (2007)

----

[1] Against Intellectual Monopoly, Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstnew.htm)

[2] Thus, while the US Trade Representative calls for Indian Patent Law to conform to US practices, patent reform is now being pushed aggressively within the US by the high tech industries that are complaining of grant opposition and post grant opposition (as exist in Indian Law) are being put forward as patent reforms in the US Congress. The US Supreme Court has now made combining two existing innovations into a “new” one invalid for patenting (again already barred under Indian Law). The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has now ruled in what is not patentable virtually in the same language for what is not patentable a broken patent system. Both pre according to the Indian Patent Act (Section 3 d, challenged by Novartis in Chennai High Court).

[3] US Patent 6368227, “Method for swinging on a swing”, filed by a five year old child; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1418165.stm, How an Australian lawyer patented the wheel. There are many other examples.

[4] "We build and create by bringing to the tangible and palpable reality around us new works based on instinct, simple logic, ordinary inferences, extraordinary ideas, and sometimes even genius. These advances, once part of our shared knowledge, define a new threshold from which innovation starts once more. And as progress beginning from higher levels of achievement is expected in the normal course, the results of ordinary innovation are not the subject of exclusive rights under the patent laws. Were it otherwise patents might stifle, rather than promote, the progress of useful arts. See U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 8. These premises led to the bar on patents claiming obvious subject matter established in Hotchkiss and codified in §103. Application of the bar must not be confined within a test or formulation too constrained to serve its purpose." KSR International v Telefax US Supreme Court

[5] James Bessen and Michael J. Meurer, Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers

Put Innovators at Risk, Princeton University Press, March 2008.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/software-patents/response-by-knowledge-commons-1

Digital Pluralism

nishant — 2009-02-06T06:31:50Z

The Internet, when referred to with a capital I, often gives the notion of a centralised, homogenised, consolidated network of access, protocols and people. Popular representations and imaginations of the Internet ‘make invisible’, the extremely complex, intricate, and varied nature, not only of the uses and the stakeholders of the Internet but also the many forms that Internet itself takes. The notion of pluralism – the belief in multiple knowledges and perspectives, the availability of different frameworks and truths, and the transmit-ability and transmutability of information – is built into the very form of the Internet. It is perhaps more appropriate, given the wide scope and range of the internet and the many different ways in which it intersects with the world around us, to talk of many different kinds of internets.

The Centre for Internet and Society sets out to examine the multiplicity of Internet by looking at the notion of digital pluralism. We seek to theorise the particular concept to investigate the many intersections that the internet has with the world around us. Given the scope and persuasiveness of internet technologies, it would be redundant to produce a list of possible meanings of the internet. Instead, we conceptualise the internet at three different levels, each demanding its own history, context, materiality and specificities, to produce a more comprehensive understanding of what the internet means and how it responds and reacts to the digitised and networked times we live in.

Internet as Technology

At the primary level, the Internet is a set of protocols, which allows the transfer of data over a complex and almost interminable network. It is necessary, as the internet increasingly becomes central to the crucial mechanics of survival, to recognise it as a technology. The arrival of internet technologies has made a significant impact in the domains of life, labour, language and history, changing the way we understand certain older structures like property, economy, capital, possession, ownership, etc.

So persuasive is the seductive power of the internet, that it often makes invisible the larger questions of freedom, access, and production, in its unfolding. The call to re-emphasise the internet as technology is to examine the economic rhetoric of globalisation, urbanisation and new digital technologies on the one hand, and the alarmist calls around piracy, security, theft and ownership on the other.

Communities of gift economy, of open access to content online, of advocating Free/Libre/Open Source Software (FLOSS), of promoting greater inclusion and pluralism of non-licensed softwares and protocols have all emerged around the questions of Internet as Technology. Despite the gravity of the concerns they raise and the unequivocal merit of their activities, very little attention is given to them either by the private sector or civil societies or the government. While there has been a long (and often raging) debate on the internet around these issues, the mainstream media and the larger public remain outside its scope and continue getting implicated in softwares, platforms and digital forms while compromising their rights.

The Centre for Internet and Society hopes, through a model of consultation and collaboration, to actively intervene in this field, to promote the digital pluralism of internet technologies and resist any hegemonic and coercive practices of larger corporate conglomerates and state bodies that may act against public interest.

Internet and its Materiality

The Internet has material consequences. Cybercultures theory, augmented by other instrumental discourses on the internet, incessantly confines cyberspaces to a schism between virtual reality and real life. Such a view of the internet renders the material transactions and consequences of the internet invisible.

As the internet technologies become more pervasive and persuasive, they become an integral part of the mechanics of modern survival. The internet has now become central to the domains of life, labour and language, affecting crucial questions of identity, subjectivity, sexuality, freedom and expression. How do we think of ourselves, not only in relation to technology but also as technologised beings; in a condition of becoming cyborgs? What are the forms of subjectivities that emerge in the technologised transactions of every day? How do we understand the different forms of sexual interactions, mediated and shaped by internet technologies? What are the new kinds of sexual identities which are produced and mobilised by the internet? Is the internet, as is often celebrated in popular discourse, really creating alternative public spheres of freedom or is it producing new forms of exclusion and discrimination?

The Centre for Internet and Society believes that while these questions have cropped up variously, and often emphatically, in the last four decades of Internet presence, there has been very little academic or theoretical attention given to them. The approaches that exist are primarily focussed on the object of change rather than the technologies that shape the change. The accounts provided also, instead of drawing from the mechanics and aesthetics of the technologies, rely on earlier technologised forms to make meaning of the new form. We find it imperative to work for a better understanding of the way the globalised technologised world is being shaped through the wide-spread penetration of Internet Technologies and their material consequences.

Internet and Cyberspaces

Cyberspaces, though a smaller part of the Internet, are the most visible face of the Internet networks. The arrival of the GUI, social networking applications, innovative forms of interaction and networking, online gaming, role-playing and expression platforms like blogging, and virtual worlds, have created a fascinating network of users, distributed across lifestyles and geographies, interacting with each other in unprecedented forms. Cyberspaces, with their ability to immerse the users entirely into the medium, creating a world of incessant interaction – with technologies, with technologised forms, with cultural products, and with the other users, who have translated themselves, using the structures of anonymity and desire – have led to new forms of social, cultural and economic practices which require critical thought and analysis.

Cyberspaces produce many questions – some legal, some judicial, and some about safety, danger, and harm – which need to be answered and engaged with at a serious level. Given the unmoderated nature of access and production on cyberspaces, how do we make a call for safety and caution without compromising the rights of the individual for freedom of expression, speech and being? How do we protect the innocent or the uninitiated, from scandals, scams or situations which might be harmful to them, without making a call for censorship and regimentation? As familial interactions get mediated with technologies, how do we understand the notion of family and the economies that surround it? With new political and cultural mobilisations coming in effect, how do we imagine the space of the public and the political?

Questions like these have a direct bearing on the ideas of individual freedom and right to non-discrimination, while simultaneously asking for a moderated and controlled cyberspatial experience. The design, form, shape and content of cyberspaces all have different implications in these questions, and an analysis of not only the user behaviour or the impact but the very epistemological origins and functions of such forms is important to be studied. These concerns also bolster the idea of digital pluralism of a certain kind – not a neo-liberal call for solipsistic individualism but concentrating on and bolstering the relationships that the individual has with the society and how internet technologies mediate these relationships.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/substantive-areas/digital-pluralism/digital-pluralism-1

Cyberspace in its Plurality: Cybercultures Workshop at TISS, Mumbai

nishant — 2008-10-31T10:38:17Z

Cyberspace has become one of the most potent and persuasive metaphors of our times, enveloping and embracing a wide range and scope of areas across disciplines and perspectives. The cybercultures workshop is designed to be an introduction to the multiplicity of cyberspaces and internet technologies and the key questions which have emerged in the almost four decades of cyberculture theory. The workshop is designed across four days; each day dealing with a certain understanding of cyberspace – in its materiality, in its imagination, in its instrumentality – in order to present a comprehensive view of the vast terrain of cyberspace and its intersections with the contemporary worlds we live in.

Workshop @ Centre for Media and Cultural Studies, TISS, Mumbai

The four day workshop at the Centre for Media and Cultural Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, sees CIS engaging with one of the most exciting spaces in the Indian academia; we design and administer an introduction course on cyberspace and its plurality to students of media and cultural studies. The workshop is a part of the Centre for Internet and Society's larger concern on providing a multidisciplinary, multi-media approach towards the internet and contextualising it in India.

Structured on a seminar model, the workshop hopes to bring together the questions in academic debate as well as in the realm of cultural production, for students to understand the internet technologies and cyberspaces as not only important cultural outputs but also crucial forms that shape the world we live in.

Objectives: The four day cybercultures workshop hopes to achieve the following objectives:

To introduce the students to the multiplicity and complexity of ‘cyberspace’.
To introduce ‘cyberspace’ as an epistemological category to emphasise the centrality of cyberspaces in understanding the mechanics of urban survival in the contemporary.
To orient the students towards understanding the textuality of cyberspace; rescuing it from the confines of digital networks and locating it in the transactions of globalization and urbanization in Asia.
To introduce the key debates in cybercultures theory: body, gender, sexuality, authorship, ownership, access and information democratization.

Design: The cybercultures workshop is designed to be conducted over four days with two sessions (of three hours each) per day. Each day is thematically divided to look at a particular idea of cyberspace; the sessions are further sub-divided to introduce a particular perspective on the day’s theme. Each session has its set of individual pre-readings which will serve more as indicators of the stake of the debate rather than as texts around which the class will be centred. The readings shall remain as introductory material, and the class room discussions, while referring to them, will not concentrate on explaining the material.

Day 1: Cyberspace – Form, Textuality and Frameworks

Session 1: Exploring Cyberspace:

Definitions, explanations, locations

Cyberspace and Digital Technologies

Form, text, textuality

Pre-reading: Shah, Nishant, 2005. “Playblog: Pornography, Performance, and Cyberspace” available here

Session 2: The Digital DNA – Database, Networks, Archives

The Database Imperative: Sorting, information, databases

The Networking Impulse: Social Networking Systems and the condition of networking

The Archiving Aspirations: Intention, aspiration and archiving the present

Pre-reading: Manovich, Lev, 2001. “The Database as a Symbolic Form” available here

Day 2: Information technology and human engineering

Session 3 : Gender, Technology and Cyberspace

Gendering of Technology; Gendered Technologies

The body and its boundaries

Physical bodies; Digital selves; cyborgs

Pre-reading: Light, Jennifer, 1999. “When Computers Were Women” available here

Dibbell, Julian, 1991. “A Rape in Cyberspace: How an Evil Clown, a Haitian Trickster, Two Wizards, and a Cast of Dozens Turned a Database into a Society” available here

Session 4: Techno-social Worlds

Orkut Deaths : The distributed self

Role playing and identity : The real and the authentic

DPS MMS: The trajectories of selves

Day 3- 4 : Cyberspace and the Infobahn

Session 5: Movie Screening: Good Copy, Bad Copy (followed by discussion)

Session 6: Who owns Cyberspace?

Ownership and Possession

Licensing and access

Open source and the gift economy

Pre-reading: UNCTAD essay on copyright and related questions, available here

Session 7: 18 Reasons Why Piracy is Good for You

The need for piracy

Piracy, theft, and property

Session 8: The Cultural Value of Intellectual Property

The Digital Millenium Rights

The Copy Right and the Copy Left

Open Access and the Creative Commons

Outputs

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/publications-automated/curricula/courses-taught-and-designed-by-cis/cyberspace-in-its-plurality-cybercultures-workshop-at-tiss-mumbai

A2K3 Panel XI: Open Access to Science and Research

sunil — 2011-08-18T05:07:56Z

Prof. Subbiah Arunachalam participated in the third Access to Knowledge hosted by The Information Society Project (ISP) at Yale Law School between September 8-10, 2008, in Geneva, Switzerland. The conference held at the Geneva International Conference Centre brought together hundreds of decision-makers and experts on global knowledge to discuss the urgent need for policy reforms.

Original Article on A2K3 website

Download Subbiah Arunachalam's Paper

Audio file of Session on Open Access to Science and Research (Ogg, MP3)

Open access (OA) literature is digital, online, free of charge, and free of unnecessary copyright and licensing restrictions. Made possible by the internet and author consent, OA supports wider and faster access to knowledge. This panel featured Leslie Chan, of the University of Toronto; Subbiah Arunachalam of the M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation and Global Knowledge Partnership; Eve Gray of the Centre for Educational Technology, UCT; and DK Sahu of Medknow Publications Pvt. Ltd. Peter Suber from the Yale Information Society Project and SPARC moderated this panel.

It’s a distant dream for most kinds of literature, where authors are unwilling to give up the revenue they currently earn from publishers. But it’s growing quickly for scholarly journal articles, where journals don’t pay for articles and authors write for impact, not for money. The result is a revolutionary opportunity to accelerate research and share knowledge. OA is especially important for researchers and medical practitioners in developing countries, where access to knowledge has been sharply reduced by four decades of fast-rising journal prices.

This panel will examine what universities and governments can do to promote OA, with a special focus on medical research and health information. Among the models discussed will be peer-reviewed OA journals, OA repositories, the WHO’s Health InterNetwork Access to Research Initiative (HINARI), and the new policy from the U.S. National Institutes of Health requiring NIH-funded researchers to deposit their peer-reviewed manuscripts in an OA repository.

The questions to be addressed will include:

How do access barriers slow research in developing countries? How does OA remove those barriers?
What can universities do to promote OA?
What can governments, and public funding agencies, do to promote OA?
What special challenges do developing countries face in providing OA?
What are some concrete examples of successful OA policies and projects in developing countries?
Why is OA a critical issue for policy-makers concerned with public health, scientific innovation, and higher education?
How does OA accelerate the advance and spread of knowledge in medicine as well as in other disciplines?
How can OA promote the work of researchers in developing and transitional countries, both as readers and as authors?

PETER SUBER

OA literature is digital, online, free of charge, free of needless copyright
OA is compatible with peer review, copyright, revenue and profit, print, preservation, prestige
3622 peer-reviewed OA journals, 1220 OA repositories, 22 university OA mandates (15 countries), 27 funding agencies OA mandates (14 countries)
Part of the problem: journal prices have risen 4 times faser than inflation since mid-1980s. Indian institute of science is the best funded research library in india providing access to 10600 serials.
Harvard has 98990
Yale has 73900
Average ARL library = 50,566
U of Witwatersrand = 29,309
U of Malawi = 17000 ejournals, 95 print
The case for OA is especially strong for publicly funded research, medical research, research from developing countries

SUBBIAH ARUNACHALAM

Why do we needopen access to science?
Science as Knowledge commons
Created by researchers, a communal activity, science is about sharing, internet has opened new opportunities
Primary goal of science is the creation of new knowledge for the benefit of humanity
Emergence of open access – seeks to restore knowledge commons to creators. Movement, like everything else, is uneven
Physicists vs. chemists
UK, Netherlands and USA – have had many more successes
Brazil – doing very well – but China and India are not doing so well with open access
Restore the knowledge commons is to the community
This movement is like any other movement which is uneven
Developments in India

3.1% papers in chemical abstracts
30,000 papers a year indexed in SCI
Problems of Access and Visibility

New Developments:

Consortia – able to provide a lot of journals
open courseware
arXiv

Problems: papers that are published are put in inaccessible journals, and people in global South laboratories would be unable to access this knowledge. The Government gives the money but the research then ends up flying out
The policy front:

Individual efforts
National Knowledge Commission has recommended OA
Number of institutional repositories
Need advocacy and training programmes
Action missing from key players

Some individuals are doing a great job and putting all their materials online
Medical information and developing countries

No nation can afford to be without access to S&T research capacity
Neglected diseases are not a priority for pharmaceutical companies
HINARI – any country that has per capita less than $1000 is eligible

DK SAHU

Infectious diseases (chikungunya goes Italian)
Non-infectious diseases (india becoming global hub for diabetes)
Industry effects (how safe are clinical trials)
Several examples (such as MedKnow, Journal of Postgraduate Medicine) of free access to no-fee journals.
A journal from India has the most visits from London
A journal called International Journal of Shoulder Surgery but visitors are from Melbourne
More original research articles, 40+ articles in 2005 vs. 160+ articles in 2008 in IJU, more issues per year for journals, check on scientific misconduct, international recognition (11 journals in SCI in 2 years)
Going online increases citations – this is an open access advantage
Scientific output of new economies: medicine
Open access publishing is not alone sufficient – there are disappearing journals. Commercial publishers are taking over, there is a lack of continuity, non-interoperability/archiving
20-80 phenomenon (majority of journals are not OA)
Local journals are not preferred (high IF journals)

LESLIE CHAN

Role of Universities and Researchers
You need citations in order to advance in academia – if your papers get picked up and ripple throughout the research arena. What about policy impact?
“Impact factor” is evil. Open access was meant to counter the tyranny of impact factor, so OA journals should not try to battle it out in this arena.
Issues involve “big science” and “lost science”, research literature as infrastructure, integrating the gold and green roads to open access.
Institutional repositories and open access journals
There’s a lot of Big Science that costs a lot of money (like LHC)
But we have another big hole – the 10-90Gap. 10% of the global health research spending is allocated to diseases affecting 90% of the population
The G8 countries account for 85% of most cited articles indexed in ISI
The other 126 countries account for 2.5%
How much of these journals are relevant in terms of content?
We are operating with a dominant model of knowledge dissemination from the Center to the Periphery
We end up having “lost science” in the developing world because of that knowledge
Perpetuate the cycle of knowledge poverty in this way
African countries need to have in place appropriate mechanisms and infrastructure for training and exploitation of knowledge. This will enable them to make meaningful evidence based policy that pertains to local needs
Researchers in developing countries ranked access to subscription-based journals as one of their most pressing problems
HINARI: health sciences

108 countries, 1043 institutions, 5000 journals
Collaboration of >45 publishers: free or reduced-cost access to journals for developing countries
Others: eIFL.net, AGORA: agricultural sciences, OERE: environmental sciences, PERI
Dissemination through information philanthropy. http://libraryconnect.elsevier.com/lcp/1001/lcp100109.html

Open access: the solution to the “lost science”
Two routes to Open Access (OA) – open access journals and respositories
African health sciences: two years ago there was a n article published in this journal and authors found that over 50% of these drugs were substandard or fake. This got the local newspaper, and then BBC, and then other researchers started looking at it
Open Access repositories:
Institutionally-based (universities, etc) or subject-based (e.g. PubMet Central, arXiv.org)
Collect copies of articles published by the institutions researchers
Researchers themselves deposit knowledge
Benefits for authors (research output instantly accessible for all (higher impact)
Research output of international research community accessible to author
Partnerships/collaborative projects develop as a result
Career prospects advanced – publications noted by authorities
Opportunities for new research discoveries, data mining etc
Alternative impact assessment
Benefits for funding bodies: what has been discovered with our financial support? Was it a good investment?
Researchers have a moral and intellectual obligation to ensure that their research is accessible
Universities share a common goal and public mission advancement of knowledge for the betterment of human kind
Open access is key to the MDG

EVE GRAY

When we talk about open access, we talk about change and change delivery.
It’s not just intellectual property and copyright issues, but values, cultures, systems, practices, everything that underlie the process moving towards scientific research
We faced the biggest problem in facing change – we’ve seen a massive overhaul, of transformative reports, of leveraging the country into a different direction. Undoing the damage of apartheid and colonialism
What is meant by international? What is meant by local?
African knowledge for Africa: we need to rejuvenate, regenerate our own knowledge
SA: first heart transplant in the world. Have their own vaccines. Operate as a leading scientific country
Growing international competitiveness – publication is perceived as a matter of journal articles in international journals. Little or no support for publication in nationally-based publications
Much research output in grey literature, not easily findable or accessible
The Medicines and Related Substances Control Act, 2001
Research has to address the burning economic issues of a country
Things are changing…slowly
Support for open access publications
What needs to be done – open access journals are necessary.
Changing values and promotion systems – we have to somehow pick up on the vision of that vibrant African dance movement, translate this feeling
Providing support for publication efforts
Expand the range of publication outputs
Ensuring the social impact of research
There is a huge amount of research being pumped out and being printed out by NGOs
Great literature is almost inaccessible in universities
Could not access African journals – no access from their own countries or neighboring countries
Electric Book Works has manuals for health-care workers – manuals are very high-quality, out of University of Cape Town
Often forgotten that science information is necessary to trickle down, if everything is online, we can get things to trickle down
Harvard said: it is our duty to disseminate our research. Stanford: Caroline Handy – when you publish research, research for community use is part of the duty

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/a2k3-panel-xi-open-access-to-science-and-research

Piracy

royson — 2009-01-26T10:23:49Z

Context

Loss of civil liberties as a result of increased and indiscriminate enforcement activities by State and private bodies.
Conflation of piracy with concepts such as terrorism, child pornography and drug trafficking which prevents legitimate off-line and online sharing and growth of P2P technologies.
Long term social impact of sizable section of the citizenry that views themselves as operating outside the law.

Research Agenda

Analyse different acts that are considered piracy from legal, enforcement, corporate and general public perspectives. Document changes in the definition of piracy over time in different contexts. Interrogate the double standards employed by corporations, film industry using case-studies such as T-Series, YouTube/torrent leaks, etc.
Study the prevalence of piracy in different regions of the world, market segments, technologies and sections of society. Document the social, cultural, technological and economic repercussions of these increased levels of piracy. For example: a) understanding how piracy contribute to increased consumer choice; b) examining the correlation between P2P and piracy-based distribution and enhancement of reputation and growth in market share of individual artists, bands and small companies.
Document the contribution of pirates to the development of cutting edge technologies and pushing of the limits of end-user experience. Analysing different techniques for movie, book, television, software and music piracy employed by individuals and industries.
Identify and document various factors which contribute to high level of piracy in developing countries. Design and propose strategies and policy positions such as: parallel imports, compulsory licensing, media surcharge and open licenses to reduce levels of copyright infringement.
Document and analyze various methods and methodologies for studying and tracking piracy. For example aggregation and consolidation of P2P statistics by companies such as Big Champagne. Provide technical strategies for those engaged in legitimate sharing to protect their privacy and civil rights against surveillance technologies.
Studying national and regional laws that governs copyright infringement and propose changes that protect Access to Knowledge. Examining case law for trends, including analysis of the kinds of punishments which are prescribed for copyright infringement.
Documenting due procedure for enforcement against individuals and organizations? Analyzing the legal validity of evidence submitted by enforcement agencies for different forms of alleged off-line and online copyright infringement.
Document and analyse the attention paid by developing country policy makers to piracy in different markets and technologies. Identify and monitor state agencies engaged in tracking piracy and undertaking enforcement activities?
How do citizens justify acts of piracy? How do they view themselves and others as criminals?
Document the correlation between high speed Internet connections and peer-to-peer file sharing programmes and illegal and legal sharing of knowledge.

Resources

Music industry ‘should embrace illegal websites’

Causes of illegal music product’s existence

Creativity policy pits internet providers against pirates

Piracy is good?

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/substantive-areas/new-pedagogies/piracy

Open Standards

royson — 2009-02-06T08:57:18Z

Research Agenda

Documenting and analysing the development impact and total cost of ownership of open/closed/semi-closed standards being used, considered or mandated by different markets (public/private, state/national, rural/urban). Examining the degree of compliance to these standards, for example, review of e-governance websites and review of cybercafé infrastructure.
Documenting and analysing standard setting in national and at international fora (process, participants, submissions and conclusions). Correlating market and government adoption of various standards and its impact on competition, price control and technology penetration.
Collecting, archiving and standards for Indic language computing (keyboard layouts, encoding, fonts) and development (glossaries, message catalogues, dictionaries and thesauruses) perspective. Proposing solutions for various technical roadblocks that prevent large scale adoption of standards in Indic language computing. Designing algorithm and prototypes for converters between legacy standards and contemporary open standards.
Auditing e-governance infrastructure and services for adherence to accessibility related open standards. Design migration plans for infrastructure and services that do not adhere to globally accepted open standards.

Intervention Agenda

Provide feedback to the open standards policy document to be published by the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology.
Advocate that all Government-to-citizen interfaces are based on open standards to ensure that citizens don’t have purchase or pirate software in order to interact with the government.
Advocate for the adoption of European Union-IDABC style Government Interoperability Frameworks (GIF) including national definitions of “open standards” that are FOSS friendly.
Advocate that all Government-to-Citizen interfaces adhere to accessibility related open standards to ensure use by disabled, illiterate, neo-literate and aged citizens.
Advocate for technology- and vendor-neutral tenders which mandate the use of open standards where appropriate for government ICT purchases.
Advocate the use of open standards for the purposes of archiving, media-monitoring, dissemination of research inputs/outputs and Right to Information/Freedom of Information activities by publicly-funded organisations.

Resources

Roadmap for Open ICT Ecosystems – Berkman Centre for Internet and Society
Research outputs of the Government Interoperability Framework (GIF) Project managed by Asia Pacific Development Information Programme – United Nations Development Programme (UNDP-APDIP)
Noooxml.org – Campaign against OOXML
Consortium.info – Website managed by Andrew Updegrove
Open Video Bill of Rights
Dynamic Coalition for Open Standards – Internet Governance Forum

Open Access

Context

Most research and knowledge generation in India (and elsewhere) happens owing to public funding. As new knowledge is built on what is already known, open and free access to what is already known will speed up generation of new knowledge. That is why funding agencies such as the research councils and the Wellcome Trust in the UK, and NIH and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in the USA have mandated open access for research they support. The Faculty of Arts and Science and the Faculty of Law at Harvard University and the professors at the School of Education at Stanford University have adopted a mandate for making all their research publications open access.

In India open access is picking up rather slowly. About a hundred Indian journals are open access journals—actually hybrid journals with the print version earning subscription revenue and the online version given away free—and there are about 35 open access archives. Only one institution—NIT, Rourkela—has mandated open access for faculty research publications.

India has an excellent open educational resource programme, NPTEL, jointly managed by the IITs and IISc, in which lectures by first rate teachers (delivered at the IITs and IISc) are filmed and made available in three formats: web, video and YouTube. This programme is supported by the Ministry of HRD.

Intervention Agenda

We need to design and implement a focused open access advocacy programme. It should have two components: top down and bottom up. While generally bottom up programmes reaching out to the grassroots are a better approach, in India we may have to use the top down approach as well (as we are still hierarchical and feudal).
The top down part should address the science advisers (there are two of them, PSA and SAC), the secretaries and senior technocrats in the Ministries and Departments relevant to S&T (DST, DSIR, DBT, Earth Sciences, DAE, DRDO, ISRO, CSIR, ICAR, ICMR, etc.), Chairmen of UGC, AICTE, the Indian Medical Council, the Minister of S&T, and parliamentarians.
The bottom-up part should focus on publishing researchers (professors, readers, post-docs, PhD students, chairpersons of department, deans, librarians, vice chancellors, etc., in universities; research scientists and directors in research laboratories; editors of research journals; and academies and professional societies).
We need to promote the setting up of interoperable institutional open access archives.
We need to promote open access journals. Many Indian journals are published by professional societies and research institutions.
We need to facilitate training programmes for setting up and running institutional archives and for converting journals into open access journals. Expertise for conducting such training is available at IISc-NCSI, NIC, ISI-DRTC, etc. If need be, we could even help organize training programmes with experts from elsewhere (e.g. University of Southampton for the institutional archives part and the Open Journal System or Bioline International for the OA journal part).
There is widespread misunderstanding about authors' rights. By and large Indian researchers give away copyright to journal publishers. They just sign blindly on the dotted line in the copyright agreement form sent by the publisher. We should launch a campaign to persuade authors to use an addendum (readily available from ARL and Science Commons). We should also talk to funding agencies and heads of institutions about the need to retain copyright to work performed in India with public funding.
We should identify organizations that are likely to support our programmes and plan joint programmes/ projects. For example, we can work with the Society for Scientific Values, New Delhi, in creating awareness on copyright related issues. We can work closely with IISc-NCSI on training programmes.
We can institute some awards to recognize meritorious contributions to the promotion of open access.
In the West many studies have been carried out to demonstrate that open access helps improve visibility and citability. We can carry out similar studies in India.
We can promote science evaluation methods using open access data (Google Scholar, for example).

Resources

Bibliography of open access

http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Bibliography_of_open_access

Open Access News [a blog maintained by Prof. Peter Suber]

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html

Open Access: Opportunities and Challenges, a Handbook, EUR 23459, European Commission Directorate General for Research, 2008.
The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics, a blog maintained by Heather Morrison. http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com/
John Willinsky: The Access Principle: The Case for Open Access to Research and Scholarship (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA), 2005.
Open Access to Knowledge and Information: Scholarly Literature and Digital Library Initiatives – the South Asian Scenario, by Anup K Das (Unesco Regional Office, New Delhi), 2008.
Richard Poynder's series of interviews with open access experts, Open and Shut.
American Scientist Open Access Form (Listserv) moderated by Stevan Harnad.
Association of Research Libraries SPARC OA Forum
Writings of Stevan Harnad, Alma Swan, Barbara Kirsop, Leslie Chan

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/substantive-areas/public-accountability/open-standard

Free and Open Source Software

royson — 2009-01-26T08:04:12Z

Context

Lack of balance between proprietary software and FOSS in the market, educational sector and public sector.
Vendor lock-in of public data and infrastructure resulting in a dilution of citizen and consumer rights

Research Agenda

Document, summarize and analyse the participation divide (Gender, Rural/Urban, North/South) in production and consumption of FOSS by analysing code repositories, mailing list and discussion group archives, public URLs, etc. Case-studies of FOSS developers.
Aggregate, publicly archive and analyse academic curricula in various state and national school and college boards for vendor and technology neutrality.
Documenting the pedagogic impact, development impact, total cost of ownership and sustainability of e-learning and ICT4D projects based proprietary/open/mixed technologies. For instance, Friends in Kerala, and other such projects.
Designing and prototyping improved user interfaces and improvements to existing user interfaces. Pay particular attention to localization and internationalization issues related to Indic languages.
Documenting and designing best practices and processes for training, capacity-building, mentoring, testing and certification for FOSS developers from the global South. Looking at volunteer and corporate participation for example Apache in Sri Lanka.
Understand the similarities and differences between southern and northern Linux User Groups and Free Software User Groups.

Intervention Agenda

Provide feedback to the Open Source policy document to be published by the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology.
Support Free Software Foundation, Delhi Science Forum and others in the campaign against software patents—specifically deletion of “per se” in the Patent Act and related sections in the Indian Patent Office manual.
Advocate that software developed using public funds be licensed under an appropriate FOSS license. Advocate that e-governance software that directly impinges on the quality of citizenship stands public scrutiny.
Advocate for a vendor and technology neutral ICT curriculum in schools, colleges and universities.
Advocate that students participate in global projects for academic credits and all student work be archived on online code repositories. Advocate for local repositories in colleges and universities with insufficient access to the Internet.
Promote choice rather than mono-culture in public organisations, civil society and educational sector to ensure appropriate balance between innovation and access.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/substantive-areas/public-accountability/free-and-open-source-softwar

Agenda

sunil — 2008-10-13T12:25:59Z

The Centre for Culture, Media & Governance, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, and the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, jointly organise the first Open Access Day on the 14th of October 2008 at Tagore Hall, Dayar-i-Mir Taqi Mir, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.

Agenda

Time	Session
1400 – 1415	Welcome and Introduction: Prof. Biswajit Das, Director, Centre for Culture, Media & Governance, Jamia Millia Islamia
1415 – 1535	Chair: Prof. Arif Ali, Head Dept. of Bio-Technology, Jamia Milia Islamia Panelists: Mr. Zakir Thomas, Project Director - Open Source Drug Discovery, and Dr. Anshu Bhardwaj, Scientist, CSIR, New Delhi. Dr. Andrew Lynn, Professor, Department of Bio-informatics, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Prof. Subbiah Arunachalam, Distinguished Fellow, Centre for Internet and Society
1535 – 1600	Question and Answer Session Open Discussion
1600 - 1615	Vote of thanks and closure by Sunil Abraham, Director – Policy, Centre for Internet and Society.
	End with Tea/Coffee

Contact Details

New Delhi	Bangalore
Vibodh Parthasarathi Reader/Associate Professor Centre for Culture, Media and Governance Nelson Mandela House, Mujib Bagh Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi 110 025 P.: +91 11 26933810/26933842 M: +91 9873458688 E: ccmgjmi AT gmail.com W: http://jmi.nic.in/ccm	Sunil Abraham Director - Policy Centre for Internet and Society No. D2, 3rd Floor, Sheriff Chambers 14, Cunningham Road, Bangalore - 560 052 P: +91 80 4092 6283 F: +91 80 4114 8130 M: +91 9611100817 E: sunil AT cis-india.org W: www.cis-india.org

Map

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/content-access/agenda

About Open Access Day

sunil — 2008-09-21T14:43:16Z

October 14, 2008 will be the world’s first Open Access Day. The founding partners for this Day are SPARC (the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition), Students for FreeCulture, and the Public Library of Science.

Open Access Day will help to broaden awareness and understanding of Open Access, including recent mandates and emerging policies, within the international higher education community and the general public.

Open Access^¹ is a growing international movement that uses the Internet to throw open the locked doors that once hid knowledge. It encourages the unrestricted sharing of research results with everyone, everywhere, for the advancement and enjoyment of science and society.

Open Access is the principle that publicly funded research should be freely accessible online, immediately after publication, and it’s gaining ever more momentum around the world as research funders and policy makers put their weight behind it.

The Open Access philosophy was firmly articulated in 2002, when the Budapest Open Access Initiative was introduced. It quickly took root in the scientific and medical communities because it offered an alternative route to research literature that was frequently closed off behind costly subscription barriers.

Today, the OAIster search engine provides access to 17,799,314 Open Access records from 1015 contributors. According to the Directory of Open Access Journals – India publishes 105 Open Access journals. Both INSA and IASc have made their journals open access journals. Indian Institute of Science has an EPrints repository and it has over 11,000 papers and this year, the Institute's centenary year, the number is expected to cross 23,000. NIT, Rourkela, has mandated open access to all faculty research papers. There are about thirty OA institutional repositories in India today. The IITs and IISc have formed a consortium and are making their class lectures open access under a project called NPTEL. These lectures are available in web, video and YouTube formats.

About CCMG-JMI

The Centre seeks to enhance the integration and development of interdisciplinary research into the media in India and South Asia. To this end, various programmes envisaged at CCMG will contribute in the following manner:

Methodologically, work at the Centre will examine and seek to develop new approaches both, quantitative and qualitative. This being a recurrent motif across all thematic rubrics pursued.
Archiving the measurement and analysis of media production, content and reception takes place in many organisations, but very little of such data is available to researchers, or is analysed comparatively. To address this void, the Centre aims to create an archive of media research data of value to researchers across South Asia.
Comparative perspectives across disciplines, mediascapes and regions are of utmost importance to the centre’s body of objectives. Comparative analyses will require reconciling data based on differing calibration approaches rooted in, often, contesting intellectual traditions and policy foundations.
Networking will be structured to aid the regular association of media scholars and policy analysts from varied, contiguous disciplines. Equally, the Centre will act as a focal point for dialogues between social scientists, civil society actors and media professionals who rarely are able to share a platform.

1This section and the next is adapted from the content available at http://www.openaccessday.org

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/content-access/about-open-access-day

Open Access Day

sunil — 2011-04-05T04:45:17Z

The Centre for Culture, Media & Governance, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, and the Cente for Internet and Society, Bangalore, request your presence at the celebrations of the first Open Access Day. Speaker include Prof. Andrew Lynn, Department of Bio-informatics, Jawaharlal Nehru University, and Prof. Subbiah Arunachalam, Distinguished Fellow, Centre for Internet and Society.

Venue: Tagore Hall, Dayar-i-Mir Taqi Mir, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.

Agenda

About Open Access Day

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/content-access/open-access-day

Open Content and Open Access

sunil — 2009-10-08T14:54:39Z

Open Content (of which Open Access can be thought of as a subcategory) is that content which is freely available on the Internet with or without rights to modify or re-use it. Open content can take many manifestations from openly-licensed materials (Creative Commons, etc.), open access to scholarly literature (scientific, legal, etc.), open educational resources, to open access to the law (particularly legislations and judgments). We at CIS believe that sharing of knowledge and culture is only human.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/content-access

Members

sunil — 2009-06-19T14:16:51Z

The members of the Society registered under Karnataka Societies Act are Vibodh Parthasarathi, Atul Ramachandra, Achal Prabhala, Lawrence Liang, Subbiah Arunachalam, Nishant Shah, and Sunil Abraham.

Vibodh Parthasarathi

Vibodh Parthasarathi maintains a multidisciplinary interest in the creative industries, cross-national communication policy, business history of the media and governance of media infrastructure. Currently at the Centre for Culture, Media & Governance, Jamia Millia Islamia, he has held positions at the Centre for Jawaharlal Nehru Studies, also at Jamia, Centre for Co-operative Research in Social Sciences, and Manipal Institute of Communication. He is the co-editor of L’idiot du Village Mondial (Editions Luc Pire/ECLM, 2004), Media and Mediation (Sage, 2005) and The Social and the Symbolic (Sage, 2007). His work has attracted support variously from the India Foundation for the Arts, Netherlands Fellowship Programme, Charles Leopold Mayer Foundation, Prince Klaus Fund, Charles Wallace India Trust and Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation. Periodically on assignments in business development and television production with the media industry, his last documentary Crosscurrents: A Fijian Travelogue (2001) explored the underbelly of ‘reconciliation’ following a decade of military coups in Fiji. Vibodh’s nominations include Non Executive Director, Kadam Films Ltd. (New Delhi); Independent Director, Centre for Social Ecology (Jaipur); Founding International Member, Intercultural Library for the Future (Paris); Associate, South Asian Poverty Network Association (Colombo); and, Member, Academic Council, Institute of Social Studies (The Hague).

Atul Ramachandra

Atul Ramachandra has a background in New Media having worked for 8 years with Explocity, a News Corp company, joining them at the set-up of their expansion with VC funding, looking after operations, budget control, management and selection of technology and technology providers with an accent on open source platforms. He completed his stint at Explocity as VP - Digital, having been in charge of developing new digital media products for the Internet and Mobile phones.

He is currently Project Director setting up a self-sustaining news and information service on mobile phones, for the urban slums of Kolkata. The project is funded by the European Commission through a grant to Internews Europe, a non-profit International news agency. Prior to this, he has over a decade of experience in the solar and renewable energy sector and has worked on product development and technical marketing. A graduate in applied physics (5 year MS) from IIT Delhi (1981), Atul specialised in Solar Energy and he has 3 years of post-graduate work at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, USA. His interests are product development and innovation, new trends in technology and web enabling of products and services. He continues to be interested in the area of new and renewable energy sources and new applications powered by them and technology for the supply of potable water powered by solar energy.

Achal Prabhala

Achal Prabhala is a writer and researcher based in Bangalore. He works primarily on intellectual property; previously, he worked in media, mainly in television and print. From 2004-2006, he coordinated the Access to Learning Materials Project in Southern Africa from Johannesburg. He works on aspects of patent and copyright systems, in relation to access to medicines and access to knowledge. Some representative publications by him include Battling HIV/AIDS – A Decision Maker's Guide to the Procurement of Medicines and Related Supplies, Intellectual Property, Education and Access to Knowledge in Southern Africa, Response to Indian Copyright Law Amendment, and Reconsidering the Pirate Nation: Notes from South Africa and India.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/people/members

Distinguished Fellows

sunil — 2020-07-27T12:50:59Z

Prof. Subbiah Arunachalam is based in Chennai. Rishab Aiyer Ghosh is based at UNU-MERIT at Maastricht. Hans Varghese Mathews is based in Bangalore. Shyam Ponappa is based in New Delhi. Prof. Tejaswini Niranjana is based in Bangalore and Mumbai.

Hans Varghese Mathews

Prof. Subbiah Arunachalam (known to friends as Arun) started his career as a research chemist, but found his calling in information science. In the past four decades, he has been a student of chemistry, a laboratory researcher (at the Central Electrochemical Research Institute and the Indian Institute of Science), an editor of scientific journals (at the Publications and Information Directorate of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research and the Indian Academy of Sciences), the secretary of a scholarly academy of sciences (IASc), a teacher of information science (at the Indian National Scientific Documentation Centre), and a development researcher (at the M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation and the Indian Institute of Technology Madras). While working with M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, he initiated the South-South Exchange Traveling Workshop to facilitate hands on cross-cultural learning for knowledge workers from Africa, Asia and Latin America engaged in ICT-enabled development.

Arun is on the editorial boards of six international refereed journals including Journal of Information Science, Scientometrics, and Journal of Community Informatics; a member of the international advisory board of IICD, The Hague, a trustee of the Electronic Publishing Trust for Development, and a Trustee of the Voicing the Voiceless Foundation. Improving information access both for scientists and for the rural poor; scientometrics, ICT-enabled development and open access are among his current research interests.

Rishab Aiyer Ghosh is a researcher based in Maastricht. He is an Open Source Initiative board member, the founding international and managing editor of the peer-reviewed journal First Monday, and the Programme Leader of FLOSS at UNU-MERIT. He has undertaken several global, high-profile studies on Free Software. He is a jury member for Global Bangemann Challenge (now Stockholm Challenge Award), a prestigious prize awarded to IT projects with socio-economic impact by the mayor of Stockholm and founder member of the GII Internet Commerce Brain Trust. From 1995–1999, Rishab has worked as an editor at The Indian Techonomist, an analytical newsletter on Indian media and communications targeted at a global audience, an analyst and newsletter contributor for US-based Paul Kagan Associates, and a weekly columnist on Internet society (Electric Dreams). He still writes regularly, with over half a million words published in journals, newspapers and magazines worldwide, from PC Quest India to Wired Magazine, USA. From 2008, he heads the Collaborative Creativity Group at UNU-MERIT.

Shyam Ponappa is a Distinguished Fellow whose work is in the areas of broadband, telecommunications, and spectrum policy, from management, systems, and technology perspectives.

Beginning his career at the State Bank of India, he was a Senior Manager, Management Consulting Services, at Price Waterhouse in San Francisco, M&A Head for Citibank in India, and thereafter managed a partnership doing alliances, business strategy, and financial placements in New Delhi for major international and domestic clients. Subsequently, he was an independent consultant in India and abroad. His experience is in financial placements, M&A, and business strategy for clients in IT, telecommunications, power, oil/energy, airlines, biotechnology, banking/financial services, hotels, shipping, railroads, manufacturing, agri-business, law firms, and retail enterprises.

He has advised the government on public policy since 1990, primarily in telecommunications. As a columnist for the Business Standard, he writes on infrastructure and managing economic reforms (http://organizing-india.blogspot.com). He has an MBA from the University of California at Berkeley, an MA (History) and a BSc (Physics) from Madras Christian College."

Tejaswini Niranjana is presently a Senior Fellow at the Centre for the Study of Culture and Society (CSCS), Bangalore, and Visiting Professor at Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), Mumbai.

At CSCS (www.cscs.res.in), Tejaswini helped set up in 2001 an inter-disciplinary doctoral programme in Cultural Studies, and many of her Ph.D. students have brought Indian language materials into their research and writing. At TISS (www.tiss.edu), Tejaswini is incubating the Centre for Indian languages in Higher Education, which will anchor a multi-institutional programme for Indian languages in higher education, including production of new resources, curriculum strengthening, research training, digitisation and archiving. On the anvil is the creation at TISS of a digital hub for Indian language resources for tertiary education.

She is also Lead Researcher of the Higher Education Innovation and Research Applications (HEIRA) Programme at CSCS (http://heira.in). HEIRA works towards sectoral transformation in higher education, working with private and public institutions to design and field-test new methods for curriculum development, teacher training and institutional change at the undergraduate and post-graduate levels. Tejaswini is co-author of a policy note on quality education in Indian languages, the recommendations of which are now part of the final 12^th Plan document (http://www.ugc.ac.in/ugcpdf/740315_12FYP.pdf).

Select publications are available from cscs.academia.edu. Her best-known book is Siting Translation: History, Post-structuralism and the Colonial Context (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992). More recently, she published Mobilizing India: Women, Music and Migration across India and Trinidad (Durham: Duke University Press, 2006).

Tejaswini is the Adviser (since February 2013) to the 'Access to Knowledge' programme of CIS and will guide the A2K team in expanding the Indian language Wikipedias and in increasing the number of active editors through strategic partnerships with Higher Education institutions across India.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/people/distinguished-fellows

Storytelling and Technology - Sartaj Anand

denisse — 2014-03-12T11:43:19Z

This post outlines the general characteristics of storytelling. The second section is an interview with Sartaj Anand, the founder of EgoMonk and BIllion Strong, who talks about storytelling as a strategy to build trust at the intersections of business and technology. This is the first of a series of installments exploring the potential of storytelling for social change.

CHANGE-MAKER: Sartaj Anand

ORGANIZATION: EgoMonk & Billion Strong

STRATEGY OF CHANGE: Leverage technology by focusing on the relationship between people and technology, and build trust by localizing and personalizing communication

METHOD OF CHANGE: Storytelling

“We all have something to say. Question is: will anyone listen?”

Understanding Comics
Scott McCloud, 1994

Today, everybody seems to be talking about ‘storytelling’. From activists to corporates; they are all jumping on this nostalgic bandwagon and embracing once again an enthralling habit of yesteryear: the ability to tell good stories. The practice has taken an identity of its own. It's distancing itself from its roots in oral tradition, and morphing into a state-of-the-art communication strategy. This is no selfless trend, though. Behind the hype, lies their thirst for (your) attention, and the belief that they do not only have a story to tell, but that it is a story that matters. In the context of “making change” particularly, when political and social crises emerge, the public space is flooded by a series of narratives and discourses as told by different actors. This explosion of stories culminates in an overload of information that could end up saturating its intended audience. This is not only undesirable, but dangerous when underneath the noise lies a message important for human dignity and survival. So, what is it about a story that will make it worthy of your attention? And how can this seemingly simple, yet complex tactic culminate in further engagement?

To explain storytelling as a method to create change, I will focus on how this practice can be utilized to enhance visibility and effectiveness of advocacy practices, as outlined in the research overview. I will start by unpacking ‘storytelling’: focusing on its purpose and functions. I will also look at the the relationship between the storyteller and the audience, and also at how storytelling redefines ‘the public space’. Although I will be putting my best effort to explain the workings behind his method, I will rely on the storytellers themselves to learn about the power of well-crafted and well-delivered stories to make change. This opportunity’s change-actors: Sartaj Anand, The Ugly Indian, Blank Noise, come from different fields and will show very different perspectives of how the narratives of change utilized in their stories, re-articulates how users/citizens/customers interact and experience content.

Telling Stories

So, what is storytelling? And what makes it so different from other forms of narration? I consulted the work of German philosophers Walter Benjamin and Hannah Arendt to unpack the nature of this practice and its ability to transmit knowledge.

“the storyteller takes what he tells from the experience and he in turn makes it the experience of those who are listening”

W. Benjamin, 1977

In Benjamin’s essay “The Storyteller” (1955) he laments the demise of storytelling: “less and less frequently do we encounter people with the ability to tell a tale properly [as if] the ability to exchange experiences [had been taken away from us]”. Having its origins in oral tradition, storytelling for the most part consists of taking experiences worth sharing and disseminating them in the community with a specific, and according to Benjamin, a useful purpose in mind. It could be a moral, a maxim or a practical advice (1977), but at the end of the day, the audience takes away a new piece of information it did not have at the beginning of the story. This lesson may be related to the past of the storyteller or one of his characters, but its value lies in how it can now be extrapolated to the audience’s future.

Ann Rippin's rendition to The Storyteller by Walter Benjamin. Visit her wordpress here.

Hannah Arendt, German-American philosopher from the early 20th century also had a lot to say about storytelling and ‘narratives’. She understood it as a framework, backed up by a strong tradition of its own, and a structure that embodies how our mind works: “the mind doesn’t simply re-create sequences of events as they occur, but it creates new sequences and integrates events into appropriate existing sequences; the mind is constantly forming narratives” (Kieslich, 2013.). This understanding of the practice goes beyond Benjamin’s proposition that we become part of the narration as it occurs. Arendt posits that our mind is already manufactured to construct sequences and connections in the same way in which we build stories -as opposed to the way we structure our essays, novels or tweets- before we tell them. Being such an embedded cognitive process, it feels familiar, comfortable and natural, which derives into a “critical appreciation” for the events of the story, and leads you to make deeper connections on how they relate to your life (Oni, 2012).

(Read more on Arendt and storytelling here: The Story of Reconciliation – Hannah Arendt Center)

However, both Benjamin and Arendt’s analysis is still very focused on the oral vs. prose question. Entering the 21st century we face the question of the role of digital technology and our highly visual culture in facilitating, amplifying or limiting the process of storytelling. On this point, I jumped to the end of the 20th century and looked at one of the many forms of storytelling: the comic. Scott McCloud’s “Understanding the Comic” (1994) takes you through the whole process of creating a coherent interplay of words and pictures that “convey information” and/or produce an “aesthetic response in the viewer”. Why are aesthetics important? , Because, according to McCloud, the inclusion of art is both the rejection and affirmation of our human condition. On one hand, art (or how we respond to it) is a rejection to our basic instincts, allowing us to express needs beyond survival and reproduction. On the other hand, it is a vehicle through which we assert our identities as individuals and pursue a “higher purpose and truth” (1994). Digital storytelling is imbued with visual stimuli: pictures, videos, graphics, that enhance the sensory experience, and as we explored in the Information Design posts (Find Part 1:Information Activism, and Part 2: Information Design) create new (and deeper) channels to approach and understand the message delivered by these stories.

Excerpts of Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud

From these three perspectives we understand the following about storytelling. It is:

A practice rooted in the tradition of sharing experiences

Participatory and interactive: the experience of the storyteller becomes the experience of the audience.

The purpose of storytelling is to pass on a message, moral guidance or practical advice to the audience, through its content.

The form or structure of narratives is determined by sequences of facts and events, which is the same way we build stories in our minds.

The experiential and familiar nature of storytelling makes it easier to engage with and relate to.

The inclusion of images, art and media produces an aesthetic response in the viewer, providing the audience an opportunity for self-expression and freedom.

Translating these characteristics to the theme of the Methods for Social Change project (how to build a sense of citizenship and civicness through technology-mediated practices. More here): storytelling (re)emerges as a promising vehicle for political change, especially when in par with the “technological possibilities” of our times (Benjamin, 1977). If we choose to entertain this thought, we find how its roots in community traditions make stories an excellent meeting point to form solidarity networks and stronger offline communities to sustain activism. The logical and sequential format of stories are interesting mediums, not only to transmit new ideas on citizenship and engagement; but make them relevant and appealing. Finally, 'the moral of the stories' are seeds for introspection and reflection, that may shape how we understand our role in society as a whole. At the end of the day though, it is storytellers who will lead this journey and meeting them is the first step to gauge how the theory of storytelling unfolds in the practice.

In the next section, we will meet some of the actors utilizing this method in different fields - and there are plenty of storytellers out there, gifted in skill and practice conveying an array of messages to an equally diverse public- but before moving on I will close with an excerpt from Lisa Disch’s essay that brings all these points together:

“[Storytelling] is more adequate than arguments to depict ambiguities of a multidimensional social reality”

In other words, it is a practice that strips narratives from all ornaments, displaying the complexities of humanity in its most intuitive and experiential form.

(Story)Tellers

Great storytellers: creators who devote their resources in controlling

this medium to convey their messages effectively”

Understanding Comics
Scott McCloud (1993)

Our first storyteller is Sartaj Anand; an India-based entrepreneur, founder of the innovation and strategy consulting firm: EgoMonk and active member of TED, Ashoka, Sandbox, Kairos Society and the Pearson Foundation networks (More about his work in his Social Good profile). His self-described “unreasonable dream” is to impact one billion people with his work and create “life-changing experiences”. He strives to do this by a) leveraging the relationship between people and technology and b) through his recently launched non-profit Billion Strong. Also, as opposed to other change-makers we’ve interviewed in the project, he comes from an engineering and business background; bringing a for-profit perspective into our melange of multi-stakeholder approaches to change.

The following interview touches on digital storytelling as one of the ways Anand is using to leverage technology. His vision highlights how you cannot disconnect people from the processes you are utilizing to impact their lives. Incorporating a more humane focus in the way we use technology, and in how we construct stories, is according to his experience, the best way to have practices resonate to and be appropriate for the public.

Sartaj Anand,

Founder of EgoMonk and Billion Strong

Tell us about your background and the intersections of your work with technology.

I started with an engineering background and my thesis was on language processing; figuring out how people talk and how that needs construction data. Fundamentally at some point, I figured out that technology is not the problem, people are; so that’s how I moved into my current focus in business: which is innovation strategic consulting. I frequently rely on technology to enable or actualize change but I don’t necessarily create it. The challenge is how we leverage the technology we have [...] and that’s where I can add the most value.

How do you leverage technology in the context of making change then?

I leverage technology in terms of using it but focusing on the ‘people’ side of it”: the relationship between people and technology. That’s the main intersection point. [...] This is what I mean when I talk about technology, innovation, social structures and change.

Ideas for Change from Sartaj Anand

Economically, business models have to replicate and service society. If businesses serve their people, they capture maximum value and gain efficiency over ten, twenty years (and this is appealing to all the capitalists in industrial businesses). However, towards the course of these years a lot of things can change and you progressively become more and more outdated. When you have this premonition, that's the point when you need to step in and cannibalize your own business model.

For example, for seven years, music labels sold cds only. Then Apple came in with iPods and digital music downloads. After milking this for 10 years, what it should have done is fortify it and start streaming music to capture maximum value, like Spotify did. [...] This is a model EgoMonk works with and we try to communicate these things to our clients. They have the power to execute it, but they have to internally feel confident with all their stakeholders, whether it is for-profits with their board; or non-profits with donors and program partners. This is a choice we need to commit to. A lot of the problem in the change process (technology enabled or otherwise) is trust building. At the end of the day you are working with people, and this is a challenge.

In order to build this trust you must be aiming for a deeper and personal communication with your clients. How are you including this in your business model?

We focus a lot on communication and that’s something we rely on increasingly; and I found it has to have a Why-What-How model -borrowing from Simon Sinek's gold circles. In that order.

Storytelling 101 from Sartaj Anand

People don’t buy the 'what' of it, without the 'why' you do it. For example, Apple is great because it works to improve your life, to inspire you, amuse you: make your life better. What they do comes second: Apple is an electronics company, an application company. Last is the how: It makes the iPhone. We apply a similar model and this is something I apply in my storytelling also. I’m a believer that every story has to have an end or a moral: something that is more hopeful and optimistic. Rely on that but decide that also, I’m not the only one around: stories are increasingly personal and local.

Given the personal and experiential nature of storytelling, I assume it is a challenge to mainstream it in your services. Tell us more about the practices you are using to implement it and how they break from more traditional communication practices in the past.

EgoMonk

EgoMonk is an Innovation and Strategic Management Consultancy (More about EgoMonk here). Particularly this means that:

a) We start with the hypothesis that we don't know everything. With that in mind, we borrow amazing frameworks from amazing institutions. For example, Holacracy; (a “purposeful organization” technology that changes how the organization is structured, how decisions are made and how power is distributed); 'How will you win' philosophy from traditional large companies,, where they equate every decision to a couple of questions like what's your winning aspiration?, where will you plan?, how will you win?, what capability systems/processes need to exist to make this a sustainable practice that outlives you? This approach gets us halfway there, [especially] working with people who haven't had access to this before.

EgoMonk's services

b) We localize it. We work with high impact entrepreneurs and turn their life goals into a four week plan. We frame it: What happens if after four weeks, you die. If these are four weeks you have to live: what really matters to you? What do you want to accomplish professionally and personally? Once you go through that exercise we say: What can continue sustainable during your life? What can you take away? We focus on timing and what you have to do. Once you put that concept of mortality into every day's existence, you start behaving differently.

c) We work with gamification. For example, we worked in a factory and completely changed the incentivization for their workers into something that is more fun. The challenge was: how do you improve the process of well-being in an industrial environment. How do we make working enjoyable for them? This model consists of short-term rewards: if you work really hard over this much time, you get 10 points and this gets you a (reward) with your family. This has never happened before.

Billion Strong

Billion Strong is a platform. We want to impact a billion people and mobilize a billion dollars every year. The concept behind it is that the future is completely decoupled from our reality. It is highly utopian and right now we are not there and my hypothesis is that we'll never get there because our perspectives and assumptions keep evolving. This non-profit aims to accelerate the future in our lifetime so we can at least enjoy some of its benefits. It focuses on six things: culture, mobility, technology, art, nutrition and divinity. Each of these will be used as levers to impact a billion people. In the case of Billion Strong, user adoption is the most frequent challenge you face in the non-profit space. I will explain this using our first two projects:

a) Project 1 - Divinity:
We want to take religion, God and spirituality as a lever to impact people. A manifestation of this is the release of an open source tool kit to convert religious institutions into co-working spaces.

Centers of religion are:

Everywhere and permanent

Well known by the community

Community centers

Safe

Non-profit and non-taxable

Underutilized 99% of the time

Disconnected from youth

Centers of religion have always been centers of education and community oriented, but within the last generation they've become prayer halls, and I think this is the wrong way of using this infrastructure. There are a couple of narratives being negotiated here (See box to the left).

In this case [the open source tool-kit] has a framework, and it is dynamic to the point where your choices in real time will influence the policies of this place and their physical manifestation. So you ask questions in a flow chart: Do you want men and women to work together or not?; Do you have the ability to buy new furniture or you want to use the existing furniture?; when you ask these questions you navigate a flow chart, depending on your choices. They will lead to a different output and when they see that, it is immediately empowering. This is storytelling, and this what will help us navigate the adoption issues. It's essentially us saying you own it; you know exactly what is good for your own community. In terms of the narrative, each copy will be different and adapted to its language. It has to be made for this community and everything has to be localized for that story you are telling. The religious and cultural narrative needs to be blended into it.

b) Project 2 - Nutrition:
Meat consumption is a huge challenge and highly unsustainable. We will use kick-start mechanics in a mobile app to trigger and enable change in food habits. We are obviously very digitally inclined right now. It's easy to capitalize on that, but instead of giving them money, we will ask them to skip a meal, go vegetarian for today or for the week and we are going to support that.

Adoption is a huge challenge, so we'll ask them: Where do you stay? They'll say: Amsterdam [for example], and it will provide them with a template. If you are vegetarian for today, for the week, or the month, this is your meal plan and all you need. Users will find meals close to them and won't have to worry about it anymore. And we will map their impact in real time through info-graphics and data visualization. They will be constructing and visualizing their own story in real time and we’ll present it through different narratives.

We are also looking at multi-stakeholderism in this project. Both EgoMonk and Billion Strong seem to be a combination of business, technology and communication strategies. Why multi-stakeholderism?

Three reasons:

a) The future is multi-domain. You will never understand the whole picture if you say: I’m only going to solve water, but what about the pipes, the roads, the environment, infrastructure, cultural issue. One domain is no longer good enough. You will never be a complete expert of the complete ecosystem.

b) Adoption models will always be a challenge and right now it’s a compromised formula. Now it's a zero-sum game. We literally need to escape that and make it future-oriented; make it 1+1 through partnerships.

c) Storytelling is also getting more mainstreamed into change management and multi-stakeholderism. At the end of it, if you tell a good enough story, you can sell and get people to believe in your projects. This inherently builds partnership models. There is something that is permission marketing: all sales in the future are relationship based and indirect sales.(E.g. Red Bull is all about the experience) That’s how we have to be when we talk about multi-stakeholderism. Everything needs to be built in.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

** Next installment will look at how storytelling enhances visibility and accessibility, and how it is being used by Urban Governance groups in Bangalore.**

Sources:

Arendt, Hannah (1994) Essays in Understanding Edited with an Introduction by Jerome Kohn. The literary Trust of Hannah Arendt Bluecher.p.308
Benjamin, Walter. (1977): "The storyteller."89.
Disch,Lisa Jane (1994) Hannah Arendt and the limits of Philosophy. Cornell University Press. p.172-173
Kieslich, Ingo. (2013) "Walter Benjamin, Hannah Arendt: Storytelling in and as theoretical writing." PhD diss., Vanderbilt University,
McCloud, Scott. (1994)."Understanding comics: The invisible art." Northampton, Mass
Oni, Peter (2012). "The Cognitive Power of Storytelling: Re-reading Hannah Arendt in a Postmodernist/Africanist Context."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/making-change/storytelling-sartaj-anand

Open Access Logo 2

thomas — 2011-10-24T17:11:27Z

The Open Access Logo

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/Openaccess.jpg