March 27, 2008
InSTEDD publishes!
Well, not yet, but they will [pdf]. Janet Ginsburg explains the development of the idea of the Humanitarian Technology Review, while Bruno Giussani covers the recent TED breakfast, where Eric Rasmussen gave an update on InSTEDD.
Initially the idea of a Humanitarian Technology Review sounds like a good idea - if it’s done right. The first two questions - remember the first two questions, everybody! - are: who is the target audience, and what do you want them to do with the information you’re providing? The briefing paper I linked to above says
The Review’s readers, like the Review itself, span many niches: medical researchers, software developers, policy-makers, funders, doctors, veterinarians, communities trying to prepare for or reeling from disasters - even other media.
The one group that is noticeable by its absence is - well, me. People like me, anyway, who seem to fall under the catch-all term “practitioner”. I see doctors and veterinarians in there, but which doctors and veterinarians, exactly? I think it’s likely that I’ve misunderstood - the briefing is explicit that this is about building connections between disciplines, and it’s clearly aiming at a wider audience than the humanitarian community.
If we look at the disciplines that they’re talking about, it’s a wide selection, so it’s probably easier for me to focus on the technology examples given in the review:
- lightweight fabric + satellite technology = a cheaper portable satellite dish
- software + cell phones = real-time surveillance for bird flu
- GIS + interactive mapping = real time tracking of fires and floods
- solar panels + refrigerator = reliable field transport for vaccines
- filter + straw = a mobile water purification device
- open source water tech + microfinance = funding for small water projects
- genetic sampling + fast data analysis = identifying a pathogen in hours
I’m going to think about those examples over the next few days, but I’m struggling to see how a publication can cover all of these and still appeal to a coherent audience. That’s why communities of practice exist around epidemiology, water and sanitation, and the like - because they’re focused enough to hold peoples’ attention.
The success or failure of the HTR will be in the delivery, and on that front I’m very positive about their proposal to combine different delivery streams. At the very least, InSTEDD’s deep pockets will enable them to experiment and see what works, although I’d warn them not to expect collaboration to magically appear - two years on ECB teaches you that for nothing.
(NOTE: Full disclosure - I thought about a similar idea a few years ago, but gave it up because I didn’t think it was viable. Two attempts have been made to develop this sort of thing previously - ReliefWeb’s HIN and CMI’s PeaceIT [pdf] - but the InSTEDD concept is much wider.)
Filed under Blogs, Capacity Building, Emergency Telecommunications, GIS, Humanitarian, Logistics, Media, NGO, Private Sector, Software, United Nations, Web by Paul Currion
Posts
Comments on InSTEDD publishes! »
Janet Ginsburg @ 1:19 pm
Hello Paul,
Thank you for the post!
HTR (working title) is very much an “idea-in-progress” — yes, yes, YES to more than “a bit more” development. Getting the overview out is a first step. But even once HTR is up and running — still a long way to go on that — it will take some time for it to find its groove.
As for InSTEDD’s “deep pockets,” InSTEDD is still a very young organization, with a lot of demands on those pockets. Funding for HTR will come from multiple sources, which InSTEDD may help make possible. More critical right now is InSTEDD’s support for the development of the idea. As I’ve written in a couple of posts about HTR on germtales.com:
“The need for concrete aid more anti-malarial bed nets, more vaccines and drugs, clean water, food, shelter, digital networks, money is both pressing and obvious. But to say, “We need to invest in more information and better ways to connect across disciplines!” addresses a somewhat less tangible, though no less urgent, need. This truly is innovative support, designed to link those with needs to those with ideas, products and funding. It is a medium to make it easier to discover and implement much-needed better answers. (see related post: Technology for the Greater Good: HTR & the Roots of an Idea)”
My hat is off to InSTEDD not only for seeing the value of HTR, but to support to think it through to see how to make it happen. Your point about identifying all the niche readers and how best to reach them is right on target. There are many answers and more questions.
Re your point about what we want people with the information… I am taking a fairly humble approach. Media mediates. I am less concerned about how people connect (on site or off site) than that they connect and that they’re provided the tools to make that easier.
I am staring at some deadlines this morning, so have to stop here. But that is an important point I would like to discuss further. Which brings me to to my final point: Paul: HTR very much IS for you and yours. And your input is not only welcome, it is sought! I am looking forward to the conversation…
cheers,
Janet Ginsburg
InSTEDD Edited: The Humanitarian Technology Review « Fletcher International AV Club @ 3:07 am
[…] a new journal entitled “Humanitarian Technology Review“. While I share some of the same concerns articulated by Paul Curion, the public health and disaster management communities have almost always been ahead in their […]
Sam Smith @ 3:23 am
Surely the people who are interested in the areas that InSTEDD are looking to cover are relatively self-identifying, at least in the first case?
The cases above all seem somewhat simple, but I suspect the real value may come where there are three parts on the left of the equation, rather than two. As projects involve more disparate groups, they get harder. And having a community which all speaks the same language, even if thye don’t normally talk to each other, is a good start. Because when they do need to talk to each other, they at least have a chance of talking to each other using the same words meaning the same thing.
Paul Currion @ 9:51 am
Marcel Salanthe made a point on LunchoverIP that “if doctors don’t have time to read these journals, I’m not sure what would make them read any particular cross-disciplinary journal.” I agree with him completely - while there are tremendous opportunities in terms of collaboration in this sector, my experience with ECB brought home one very simple truth to me: people who are busy with their day jobs have neither the time or incentive to pursue collaboration that isn’t already built into their work.
InSTEDD Edited: Humanitarian Technology Review « iRevolution @ 3:46 am
[…] a new journal entitled “Humanitarian Technology Review“. While I share some of the same concerns articulated by Paul Curion, the public health and disaster management communities have almost always been ahead in their […]