1. Apply to be a TechChange Guest Blogger: Do you like to write? Are you interested in researching the latest tech trends and their social applications? We're looking for 3-4 additional guest bloggers to help contribute articles. If interested, send your CV and cover letter to info@techchange.org.
2. Come to a TechChange Event: We're starting off with a bang. On June 24th we'll be co-hosting a half-day conference with the US Institute of Peace (USIP) and the United Nations mandated University for Peace (UPEACE) on the use of mobile phones for post-conflict reconstruction in Afghanistan. The event will take place at the USIP headquarters, with a number of key U.S. government policymakers, U.N. officials, and nonprofit technology innovators in attendance. U.S. Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke will deliver the opening address. More info here.
3. Help Spread the Word about TechChange: Even if you aren’t a techie, you can still help by telling a friend, sharing this with your boss, linking to our site, or even retweeting on Twitter (we're @techchange) or "liking" an occasional post on Facebook. A little tech love goes a long way.

• Flashdrives: All participants were given flashdrives with videos, case studies, spreadsheets, pdf reports, electronic readings, and other relevant material and at the beginning of the course. A number of TED talks, podcasts and videos were used instead of lengthy academic readings.

• Diigo Account: The class set up a Diigo account to collect, share and comment on relevant links that emerged during discussions. Participants agreed that this made it much easier to follow up on ideas and organizations of interest to them.

• Ushahidi Simulation: On the second day, the class used Ushahidi crisis mapping software to simulate monitoring election violence in Afghanistan. Stay tuned for a lesson plan on the simulation in an upcoming post!

• Video Games for Social Change: On day four, we played a number of “video games for social change.” These included Ayiti: Cost of Life, Darfur is Dying, Third World Farmer, Evoke, Our Courts, and Free Rice. Participants found this exercise useful and enjoyable.

• Twitter Discussion: On day five, participants engaged in a group discussion exploring the following topics: (1) How can emerging technologies best be used to build peace? (2) What ideas do you have for applying existing technologies in news ways to create peace? (3) How do we maintain the human or personal aspect needed to build peace in an increasingly technological world? The transcript of the discussion is available here.

Submission Guidelines

Images must be taken in public spaces with consent where possible. Images of children and those of illegal or compromising behavior will not be accepted.

Submissions need to include the following:

Name of the photographer
Location of the image(s)
Time/Date of the image(s)
Brief description

Submit through:

Facebook: www.facebook.com/techchange

Email: Images may be sent to keith@techchange.org

Submission deadline: August 15, 2010.

This event drew in a crowd of enthusiastic Twitterers using the hashtag #usipmobile, sharing questions and comments throughout the event and highlighting some of the key quotes of the day. Corresponding with the panel discussion, Twitter users tweeted about everything from improving governance (i.e. rule of law and anti-corruption) to countering extremism (i.e. media development and counter-insurgency) to delivery of essential services (i.e. education, health, agricultural development, and commerce).

1. What are the barriers preventing new technologies and innovations from being implemented in higher education?
2. how have Ashoka fellows been able to utilize technology to bring about social change in higher education?
3. How is technology being used to increase collaboration and retention within universities?
4. What are some examples of new models in higher education that use technology and social entrepreneurship?
5. How can we most effectively create a climate that encourages social entrepreneurship and technological innovation in academia?
6. How do we engage more students from technical disciplines (comp sci, engineering etc) to get involved with social entrepreneurship?

• Create Announcement: Basically if we decide to do it we'll need to settle on the above details and post the announcement on the AshokaU site somewhere and on the TechChange site .
• Advertise Date and Time: Then we would advertise and blast the date and time to our networks with a link back to the full announcement. This would be done mostly over twitter, and as we got closer we'd also individually message folks who we really want to take part (key influencers in the field).
• Check with Ashoka Marketing Team: It would be great to use the main ashoka acct (ashokatweets) in addition to the AshokaU acct and do this as as #socentchat if we can. Maybe you all can write to the Ashoka marketing team to ask if they are willing to take part or let you all tweet from the account.

To level up on GameSpot, all you need to do is to spend your time here. The levelling system exists in order to encourage users to come back to the site, and enjoy using it, in whatever way they want. This means there is really no set method of levelling up. Common ways of spending time here include but are not limited to: visiting the forums, posting, reading articles and blogs, watching videos, updating your profile etc. It is factors such as these which contribute towards a user's activity level, and thus, their level itself.

• To build relationships of trust and mutual understanding through dialogue based on an appreciation of each other's culture, faith and heritage
• To connect with experienced social activists and change makers addressing issues that have a local and global impact
• To share best practice in the use of social media and other tools that have empowered today's youth to mobilize beyond borders to bring about positive change

• Group 1: UN Officials: UN officials were based in the classroom or UN headquarters in Kabul. Their goal was to use Ushahidi on their computers to (1) ensure as many citizens as possible made it to the right polling stations and (2) ensure that international media had an accurate account of what was happening on the ground.
• Group 2: Election Monitors: This group played the role of election monitors stationed in Kandahar. They were tasked to work with the UN headquarters staff in Kabul to ensure as many people as possible made it to the right polling stations to cast their vote.
• Group 3: Citizens: This group played the role of Afghan citizens eager get out and participate in the democratic process but concerned about their safety. They had to figure out as a group how to use Ushahidi’s alert system to receive updates about polling center violence.  Citizens were asked to vote one by one at 10-minute intervals, regardless if any alerts had been sent out.
• Group 4: Taliban: This group was tasked with the goal of disrupting the election process and the Ushahidi platform in any “cyber” way possible.

It works like this: when a driver sees someone breaking the traffic laws (running a red light, blocking a crosswalk, using a cell phone while driving, motorcycle riding without a helmet, etc), they take a photo of the violation in progress and upload it to the Delhi Traffic Police’s Facebook page. Then police review the photo and act accordingly by tracking down violators and writing tickets.

Photo Courtesy Sana Mobile

• Not inclusive – designed for advanced professionals of Western education
• Too much overhead – have you ever edited a wiki? Uploaded to SharePoint?
• Assumes familiarity with the principles of KM – the best KM doesn’t look like KM
• Busy busy busy – many knowledge portal websites have 3 or 4 frames, tickers, dropdowns, mashups, charts, etc
• They are top down – Knowledge goes up the chain to the main repository, and then trickles down as needed

According to Shainoor Khoja of Roshan just over half of all Afghan homes had mobile phones as of 2009—44 percent in rural areas—and one percent of Afghans are now using text messaging to get news at least once per week. Some 1.2 billion dollars is being poured into Afghanistan's telecommunications industry, which covers over 12 million mobile users—a dramatic increase from 150,000 users in 2007.

This was the first time so many key players had assembled to explore this issue and it was fascinating to see the interplay and perspectives of individuals from these varied sectors. For more analysis see this post put up by my colleague Jaclyn Nardone at TechChange.

TechChange will be working with USIP to produce a detailed follow up special report on the many themes and action items that emerged. But there were two working examples that I thought were particularly relevant to the intersection of peace and social entrepreneurship.

Community-level social entrepreneurship for cell tower security: Shainoor Khoja shared a story about how the company originally thought that the best way to protect cell towers from conflict was to increase the number of armed security guards. This model proved to be expensive and ineffective so they shifted to a focus on community engagement. Roshan let community members take control of security, in exchange Roshan shared the excess power generated by their solar-powered towers with surrounding homes and businesses and developed a revenue sharing model so that if their towers were operational the community saw a percentage of the profit. This shift proved hugely successful for both the company and the community. I think this area of corporate-community financial and security interdependence is an exciting one with lots of potential to help bring peace through social entrepreneurship. The key though is that companies must have the confidence to support these strategies.

Afghanistan mobile banking pilot projects: Mobile banking is a critical innovation that could make a huge difference in restoring stability to Afghanistan. This technology allows users to withdraw money, pay bills or buy groceries with e-currency all through their mobile. Pilot projects have not only eliminated significant corruption but also reduced the costs of transferring money and handling payroll while improving the security situation. After listening to her speak I couldn't help but think of the many ways providing financial inclusion to the very poor has huge potential to spur citizen driven social entrepreneurship.

My next few posts will highlight different emerging and ongoing technical efforts that grow from social entrepreneurship beginnings to effectively build peace. So stay tuned!

(cross-posted from Ashoka peace )

• Effect sizes were larger for studies in which the online instruction was collaborative or instructor-directed than in those studies where online learners worked independently. The mean effect sizes for collaborative instruction and for instructor-directed instruction were significantly positive whereas the mean effect size for independent learning was not.
• The effectiveness of online learning approaches appears quite broad across different content and learner types. Online learning appeared to be an effective option for both undergraduates and for graduate students and professionals in a wide range of academic and professional studies.
• Effect sizes were larger for studies in which the online and face-to-face conditions varied in terms of curriculum materials and aspects of instructional approach in addition to the medium of instruction.
• Elements such as video or online quizzes do not appear to influence the amount that students learn in online classes. The research does not support the use of some frequently recommended online learning practices. Inclusion of more media in an online application does not appear to enhance learning. The practice of providing online quizzes does not seem to be more effective than other tactics such as assigning homework.
• Online learning can be enhanced by giving learners control of their interactions with media and prompting learner reflection. Studies indicate that manipulations that trigger learner activity or learner reflection and self-monitoring of understanding are effective when students pursue online learning as individuals.
• Providing guidance for learning for groups of students appears less successful than does using such mechanisms with individual learners. When groups of students are learning together online, support mechanisms such as guiding questions generally influence the way students interact, but not the amount they learn.

"Despite what appears to be strong support for blended learning applications, the studies in this meta-analysis do not demonstrate that online learning is superior as a medium, In many of the studies showing an advantage for blended learning, the online and classroom conditions differed in terms of time spent, curriculum and pedagogy. It was the combination of elements in the treatment conditions (which was likely to have included additional learning time and materials as well as additional opportunities for collaboration) that produced the observed learning advantages. At the same time, one should note that online learning is much more conducive to the expansion of learning time than is face-to-face instruction."

• Integrating Multimedia into Adult Education: Is it Worth all the Trouble?

• Basic plan:  Up to 2 gigabytes (Free)
• Pro50 plan:  Up to 50 gigabytes ($9.99/month)
• Pro100 plan:  Up to 100 gigabytes ($19.99/month)

• Simply Backup:  $2/month plus 15 cents per gigabyte (first 5 gigabytes free)
• Desktop plan:  $3/month plus 15 cents per gigabyte (also offers file sync, sharing, and mobile device access)

image source International Telecommunications Union

1. Ward off Boredom

• What are the specific learning objectives of using the clip?
• What is the added value for using it?
• Is it meant to describe, illustrate, explain or analyze?
• How will you contextualize the media and prepare students for what they are about to experience?
• Will you leave the learning experience ‘open ended’ for students to draw their own conclusions and meaning?

• Is e-Learning Inferior to Face-to-Face Instruction? (e-Learning Series)

Jenna Crowder is a freelance graphic designer and the creative director at TechChange. She is currently researching post-conflict public art for peacebuilding with a particular focus on Haiti.

1. In an operational setting, we need to determine our operating “time frame”; is my job measured in hours, days, or weeks?
2. Once we’ve got the “time frame” filter in place, we can then look at the “lag” filter.  If my work is measured in hours, then data older than a few hours might not be helpful.  If I work with timeframes measured in weeks or months, then I would be interested in data that could be weeks or even months old.

Social media does and can play a significant role in civil resistance. Due to the sexy, catchy narrative that “Twitter” and “Facebook” revolutions provide for the mainstream media – something akin to the old guard kissing up to the very platforms that will eventually dismantle their monopoly on information – the impact of social media is often attacked for being overblown. Has it been? Sure. But in an attempt by some scholars, writers, and pundits to throw a wet blanket on these new modes of communication and information sharing, they have fallen into the trap of stubbornly hanging on to an argument that flies in the face of what’s actually happening.

What Egyptians have demonstrated is that a Facebook group—We Are All Khaled Said—can make people more aware and fed up with the injustice and brutality they face at the hands of their government. Young Google executive, Wael Ghonim, was the creator of said page, which soon became a platform for others to share stories, videos, and images of police brutality. Reporting on Ghonim’s efforts, Newsweek reporter Mike Giglio writes, “the page quickly became a forceful campaign against police brutality in Egypt, with a constant stream of photos, videos, and news. Ghonim’s interactive style, combined with the page’s carefully calibrated posts—emotional, apolitical, and broad in their appeal—quickly turned it into one of Egypt’s largest activist sites.” So it is no surprise that when this Facebook page called for mass demonstrations on January 25, which is also National Police Day in Egypt, that large numbers of Egyptians were sufficiently informed and enraged to a point of heeding the call for direct action.

In 2008, the April 6 Youth Movement blossomed out of a Facebook page that, for the next three years, became the virtual staging ground for a larger coalition of groups working together to demand an end to Mubarak’s reign, envision a new government, and organize protests and demonstrations in that effort.  Two young Egyptians, Ahmed Maher and Esra Abdel-Fatah, started the April 6 Youth Movement Facebook page to organize demonstrations in solidarity with a labor strike set to take place on April 6.  When the page first went live on March 23, 2008, the power of social networking took immediate effect.  David Wolman with Wired magazine writes, “By the end of March, the group was pushing 40,000 members. Participants began changing their profile pictures to the April 6 logo, which meant the logo kept popping up in the News Feed of anyone on Facebook who was connected to someone in the April 6 group. Adding to this barrage, the activists kept loading a link to the group into their Status Update fields, further flooding Egypt’s Facebook universe with connections to the group and its message.”

The organizing utility of Facebook was immediately apparent. The April 6 demonstrations became one of the biggest in Egypt’s history and put the opposition movement and larger Kefaya (Enough) coalition on the map in a big way. The Internet, blogs, and social networks were seen as a new virtual space for people to organize campaigns and discuss social and political issues that were extremely difficult and dangerous to hold offline in physical spaces.

Twitter hashtags – #egypt, #jan25, #tahrir, #mubarak – provided, real-time, citizen perspectives of what was happening on the ground in the middle of Tahrir square and in cities across Egypt.  Twitter was also used to confirm or deny rumors of certain developments being reported by the mainstream and state media outlets.  It stripped the power and concentration of information away from the state and instead Twitters set up their own system of trending certain topics and verifying credible sources.

Videos captured on cell phone cameras and posted on YouTube exposed what government censors didn’t want people to see – be it abuse at the hands of the government or movement successes that would add fuel to the resistance.  These videos were then remixed and mashed up by digital creatives into music videos, which became a source of inspiration to keep the movement strong and inspire other oppressed people to rise up.

SMS helped activists coordinate actions – where and when to meet, sharing protest routes, reminding people to remain nonviolent, sharing methods to protect one’s self from tear gas and rubber bullets. This instant communication could be texted to a small group of direct action takers or tweeted out to millions of followers.

Is it possible to do all these things without the Internet, social platforms, and digital tools? To a certain extent, yes. Do social platforms, digital tools and the Internet as a whole allow for this kind of coordination and information sharing to happen more quickly and be more widely shared – in other words, increase the chance the movement becomes viral? Absolutely.

Two of the most recognized critics of social media’s perceived role in revolutions, Evgeny Morozov and Malcolm Gladwell, make some important and interesting arguments on this topic. However, their analysis of social media’s role, from a movement’s perspective, is both naive and slanted.  In Gladwell’s much-debated article, The Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted, he argues that social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter are based on and foster weak social ties.  Whereas encouraging someone to participate in a movement in any kind of meaningful way by engaging in high-risk actions relies on strong social ties.  This is a sophomoric view of both social media and social movements.

What Gladwell assumes in his argument is that everybody uses Facebook or Twitter in the same way he does. Just because his social ties on social media platform may be weak does not mean that it’s impossible for other people to develop strong social ties on these very same platforms. Second, even if his weak social ties argument were valid, it fails to recognize the dynamics of social movements. Most people in the midst of a social movement do not engage in high-risk actions, in fact most people engage in what would be considered low-risk actions. What is considered high-risk vs. low-risk of course depends on the nature of the movement, the ways in which an adversary responds to certain actions, and the personality of the individual implementing the tactics, but over all it is often a small segment of the population that is willing to subject themselves to physical and verbal abuse or risk imprisonment or death. Those low-risk actions do matter, however, particularly when they are adopted by a lot of people. What encourages and emboldens those who are willing engage in high-risk actions is the knowledge that the arc of history is bending in their direction. That arc can manifest itself quite potently through online social networks. We saw this in Egypt. If you have mobilized and informed enough people online, and a critical event takes place, that active online network can quickly morph into on the ground action.

Morozov argues that the Internet and the liberating virtues that are increasingly ascribed to it mask the fact that it is also being used as a tool of oppression. Because the Internet has no moral code, autocratic governments can and are leveraging it to censor information, disseminate propaganda, gather intelligence on activists, and, in turn, control the population. I do not deny this reality. But it’s that reality that makes a struggle and movement strategy necessary. Just like printing and distributing fliers, setting up pirate radio stations, and communicating via land lines and short wave radio brings with it certain risks, so too does online communication and information sharing. This is why technologically savvy activists are finding ways to communicate in code, use proxy servers to access banned websites, and tap into online platforms and services that are so pervasive they become nearly impossible to ban without shutting down the Internet all together.  And once you’ve shut down the entire Internet and suspended cell phone service, as the government did in Egypt, the lie of the regime becomes even more apparent, not just in the minds of the movement, but also in the minds of those who were, until then, sitting on the fence.

To be absolutely clear, though, these platforms and tools are not the reason people rise up, and I don’t think anyone has actually been arguing that. Injustice, economic hardships, corruption, human rights abuse, and autocratic rule are the reasons. Savvy organizers in Egypt knew how to take advantage of these online tools by using them to communicate and amplify those reasons to the public.

United States foreign policy needs to rethink “stability.” Supporting autocratic governments with military and economic aid that is used to suppress people and deny them their basic human rights puts and has put America on the wrong side of history.

For almost 30 years the US government, under both Republican and Democratic presidents, supported the Mubarak regime with billions in economic and military aid—some of which was made evident by the “Made in the USA” markings on the tear gas canisters being thrown at the demonstrators during the uprising. The reason given for this support is that Mubarak’s secular autocracy prevented radical Islamist elements, like the Muslim Brotherhood, from taking control and potentially threatening the peace deal with Israel and destabilizing the entire region.

However, history has demonstrated time and time again that people yearn to be free and that eventually they will find a way to resist oppressive and tyrannical rule, be it through armed conflict or, as we have seen in Egypt (and many other countries), through nonviolent civil resistance. In addition, history has shown us that the very terrorism the United States wants to defeat is bred in the oppressive societies we support or helped put in power in places like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Egypt.

So, instead of looking at stability as something that remains steady or unchanged despite the evolving realities and shifting demographics within a given country, it might be better for stability to be the recognition that change and reform need to happen organically in ways that address the indigenous needs of the people who are affected by the actions and policies of their country’s government.

If U.S. foreign policy remains locked into their old way of viewing stability, future administrations will continue to find themselves in the uncomfortable position of either (a) supporting allies whose autocratic regimes act in direct contradiction to America’s stated values or (b) throwing autocratic regimes under the bus in favor of recognizing the legitimate will of ordinary people fighting and organizing nonviolently for rights and justice. Did the Obama administration throw Mubarak under the bus? Basically. Should they have? Absolutely. So now we will see if this new understanding and approach to stability will emerge.

President Obama’s comments on the eve of Mubarak resignation hinted that this shift may be taking place. He said, “The Egyptian people have made it clear that there is no going back to the way things were: Egypt has changed, and its future is in the hands of the people. Those who have exercised their right to peaceful assembly represent the greatness of the Egyptian people, and are broadly representative of Egyptian society.”

Autocratic rulers take note. When people living under intolerable conditions rise up nonviolently to demand human rights, democracy, and the basic freedoms for which we all yearn, the U.S. and other governments may start to go with the tide of history and appreciate that people power will take its course, whether they like it or not.

Freedom and democracy are more successfully won nonviolently by the people who seek it, rather than imposed violently by governments who decide which people deserve it. George W. Bush famously stated in his 2001 that, “Freedom is not America’s gift to the world; its God’s gift to humanity.” I’ll admit, this phrase resonated with me, which is why I still remember it to this day. However, I find it rather unfortunate that for eight years the Bush administration took ownership of this “freedom” agenda, not because I disagree with the agenda in principle, but because the administration’s strategy for implementing this agenda was wrought with hypocrisy.

While promoting freedom and human rights in speeches, the Bush administration was imprisoning people without due process (ahem, Guantanamo), sending detainees to other countries to be tortured (ahem, Egypt!), eroding basic civil liberties domestically (ahem, Patriot Act), and turning a blinds eye to U.S. allies who are far more tyrannical and anti-democratic than Iraq was under Saddam Hussein (ahem, Saudi Arabia). Hence efforts to spread freedom and democracy fell extremely flat and the principles embedded in that agenda were betrayed.

I understand that Presidents must weigh a host of geopolitical considerations as they formulate their foreign policy. It is for this very reason though that democracy is best served, not when it is imposed on people by foreign governments with ulterior motives, but when democratic transitions and movements are homegrown, bottom-up, grassroots, and nonviolent. As we saw in Egypt, it was this kind of people power that toppled Hosni Mubarak, not foreign military intervention. War, killing, death, and bloodshed should not be seen as the default method of removing dictatorial obstacles to democratic rule.

In fact, the Freedom House report, How Freedom is Won: From Civic Resistance to Durable Democracy, concluded that in the last 33 years of transitions to democracy, “…nonviolent civic forces [have been] a major source of pressure for decisive change in most transitions.  The force of civic resistance was a key factor in driving 50 of 67 transitions, or over 70 percent of countries where transitions began as dictatorial systems fell and/or new states arose from disintegration of multinational states.”

So what does this mean in terms of supporting or not supporting nonviolent action takers? Learning about the strategies and tactics employed by past nonviolent movements can be done by anyone and should be done by everyone who wants to find pragmatic ways to fight against oppression. But understanding and analyzing the specific context of a given conflict needed to develop an actual movement strategy – the various cultural, social, economic and political dynamics at play – can only be done by indigenous people on the ground who are actually waging the struggle, putting their bodies on the line, and will have to live with the outcomes of their actions. That’s the beauty of nonviolent civil resistance. Its success is based in large part on its authenticity; an authenticity that is compromised when foreign governments and institutions try to impose their vision of a “victory” and then prescribe the strategy other people should take to achieve it.

Successful nonviolent civil resistance is not spontaneous, but rather requires systematic organizing, strategy, and planning. Maybe a lot of people are already aware of this, but you wouldn’t assume that if you’ve spent time watching any of the mainstream media or cable news pundits. Hence it deserves to be reiterated.

The 18 days of mass demonstrations that began on January 25, and ended in the ouster of Hosni Mubarak, may have caught foreign policy “experts” by surprise, but these demonstration were a result of years of strategic brilliance and bravery on the part of several Egyptian groups and organizations – labor unions, Islamists, women’s rights activists, human rights advocates, lawyers, youth groups, Bedouins, and opposition parties.  Even though the mainstream media may only have taken notice when large numbers of people occupied Tahrir square, there was a lot of coalition building, behind the scenes organizing, and unrecognized acts of nonviolent resistance that led up to the culminating days in Tahrir square.

I don’t expect the mainstream media to follow every single event that takes place in the course of a protracted struggle. But when the victory for a movement is a near certainty, I would hope that it wouldn’t all be boiled down to spontaneous demonstrations in the streets.

Lastly, the thousands of Egyptians who built this movement and the millions who supported it have made it clear that the movement is not over.  More organizing, strategy and planning is needed because dissolving the Mubarak regime was just stage one.  The next stage is ensuring that a legitimate democracy representing the will of the people is actually established and that human rights are protected.  Given the lessons learned from nonviolent movements in the not too distant past, this kind of foresight and determination is essential. Yulia Tymoshenko, former Ukrainian prime minister and one of the leaders of Ukraine’s 2004 Orange Revolution, recently wrote in the Moscow Times,  “Egyptians and Tunisians are right to be proud of their desire to peacefully overthrow despotic governments. But, as someone who led a peaceful revolution, I hope that pride is tempered by pragmatism, because a change of regime is only the first step in establishing a democracy backed by the rule of law. Indeed, as my country, Ukraine, is now demonstrating, after revolutionary euphoria fades and normality returns, democratic revolutions can be betrayed and reversed.”

This is why the title of this post ends in “…so far.”  If the numerous examples of civic pride and duty that were displayed in Egypt during and after the uprising are any sign of that country’s civil society, then the future looks good.  So we end with a recent Tweet from Wael Ghonim reading, "This revolution is not over until democracy is enforced & until unemployment & poverty rates reaches the same level as developed countries."

This article was first published on Waging Nonviolence on February 18, 2011 and has since been reposted here with the permission of the author. Daryn Cambridge is Director for Knowledge & Digital Strategies at the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict.  He is also an education and training consultant and an adjunct professor at American University, where he teaches Education for Peace and Conflict Resolution and Education for International Development.

In October 2011 (7 months from now), Liberia will hold its second democratic election. This signifies a critical juncture in post-war recovery efforts for Liberia, as the United Nations peacekeeping force is hoping to hand over security responsibilities to the relevant government authorities. You are part of team that has been recently hired by CARE International. You have been tasked to make recommendations about which technologies and software should be used help improve communications, monitor violence levels, and provide public service delivery during the time leading up to the elections and on the day itself. Consider the tools we have discussed in class, and take some time to research other relevant tools in the Case Study Library...

1. The Student: 22-year old Patricia Caceres Jara lived in Paraguay and wanted to pursue nursing at the Universidad Catolica. She needed funds for her education.
2. The Microfinance Institution (MFI): Patricia applied for a loan with one of Vittana's MFI partners, Fundacion Paraguaya. Once Fundacion Paraguaya evaluated Patricia's academic standing, enrollment, and employment prospects, they disbursed a loan of $649.
3. Vittana: Fundacion Paraguaya then uploaded information for Patricia's Vittana profile. The profile displayed her school, MFI, educational program, location, age, photo, background, and loan details. Potential lenders could view Patricia's profile on Vittana's site and read her story.
4. The Lender: On March 31, 2010, a total of 12 individual lenders fully funded Patricia's loan and Vittana transferred the payment to the MFI. By January 2011, Patricia repaid all of her loan and Vittana distributed the payment to each of the 12 lenders.

Charles Martin-Shields has served as a consultant to the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Academy for International Conflict Management and Peacebuilding, and the Churches’ Center for Theology and Public Policy. He is currently completing a long-term study of educational development evaluation in conflict-affected settings to be published in March 2011 by the University of Toronto, and consults on project development and risk analysis in post-conflict settings. He can be reached at charles.martinshields@gmail.com.

• Tech Tools and Skills for Emergency Management. (Sept 5-23)
• Global Innovations for Digital Organizing: New Media Tactics for Democratic Change. (Sept 26-Oct 14)
• Mobiles for International Development: New Platforms for Public Health Finance and Education. (Oct 17-Nov 4)