Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 9
2
Transforming Violence
Prevention Through
New Communications
B
illions of men, women, and children around the world have been ex-
posed to violence. More than 1.6 million people a year die from vio-
lence, and many more are injured. Low- and middle-income countries
bear 90 percent of the burden of violence (IOM, 2008). Many workshop
participants believed that the potential of information and communications
technology (ICT) to help in violence prevention efforts is great, but that ICT
could also be used to facilitate violence and abuse.
Speaker and Forum co-chair Mark Rosenberg of the Task Force for
Global Health noted that violence has traditionally been considered to be
the product of evil and, consequently, not preventable. But today, he said,
more people believe that violence is preventable, which is an important step
in understanding violence and moving toward prevention. Dr. Rosenberg
outlined a public health model that the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) and others have applied to the prevention of violence.
This model includes four steps: (1) defining the problem, (2) identifying risk
factors, (3) exploring potential points of intervention, and (4) designing,
implementing, and evaluating solutions (further information can be found
in Chapter 6). This model has yielded much data on what works in violence
prevention, and, as ready access to information and resources increases,
dissemination of knowledge about how to prevent violence also increases.
VIOLENCE IN THE MEDIA
Speaker and planning committee member Vish Viswanath of the Har-
vard School of Public Health discussed the relationship between exposure
9
OCR for page 10
10 COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY FOR VIOLENCE PREVENTION
to media violence and aggressive behavior in some individuals. Although
the evidence is not solid, some studies indicate that the impact of continued
exposure to violence can desensitize individuals to violence and lead to the
belief that the world is unsafe. Violence in television programming or in
cartoons models violent behavior for viewers. It can also lead to the belief
that physical aggression is the way to resolve conflict.
Speaker Dale Kunkel of the University of Arizona said that there is
consensus in the literature that media violence risks harmful effects on
children and that greater exposure increases the risk. He cited a number of
institutions that are part of this consensus, including the American Medical
Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psycho-
logical Association, the National Academy of Sciences, and the National
Institute of Mental Health. Dr. Kunkel sees violence in the media as a risk
factor for aggressive behavior—not the only and not the most powerful
factor, but one that is “consistent and meaningful.” He explained that
contextual factors can increase the risk of later violent behavior. There
is less research on the impact of violent video games than there is on the
effect of violent TV, but there is enough to say there is a correlation be-
tween aggression and playing violent video games. A recently published
meta-analysis of the effects of video games found that when the games are
violent, exposure to them can increase aggression and decrease empathic
behaviors. Dr. Viswanath also discussed cyberbullying through social media
and its connection to violence. He said there is now evidence that text-based
harassment is increasing, while harassment through other Internet media is
neither increasing nor decreasing.
Dr. Kunkel brought up policy steps that could reduce children’s expo-
sure to media violence. One such step would be to reduce the violent media
content production and its distribution. The First Amendment, which guar-
antees freedom of speech, limits what can be done in restricting production
and distribution of media that contain violence. Another policy direction
would be to “facilitate” industry self-regulation, which would avoid the is-
sue of First Amendment rights. Formal government restrictions could, for
example, regulate the hours during which such media could be shown, as
has been done in the United Kingdom. The United States uses this strategy
to regulate indecency but not violence, because there is less public concern
in the United States about violence than there is about sex. Dr. Viswanath
speculated that there is probably much more organized opposition to por-
trayals of sex than there is to violence in the United States, despite the fact
that most likely there is more programming with violence than with sexual
content. Dr. Kunkel cited a study showing that children are more attracted
to high action and that violent media generally has lots of action. The
United Nations Children’s Fund’s (UNICEF’s) office of research, Innocenti,
published a report in December 2011 titled Child Safety Online: Global
OCR for page 11
11
NEW COMMUNICATIONS
Challenges and Strategies (UNICEF, 2011). It explores the links between
child abuse and information and communications technology and suggests
ways to build a protective environment for children.
Media can be used for positive aims; for example, Sesame Street uses
positive modeling for pro-social behavior. The Sesame Workshop is in more
than 150 countries, and in 30 of them it is indigenously produced. It is de-
signed to counter the negative images children see, particularly in relation
to conflict and violence.
CREATING CONVERSATIONS AND EMPOWERING PEOPLE
Throughout the workshop, a number of speakers referred to the rapid
change that has occurred in the technology space and to the transforma-
tional impact it has had on society. In his keynote address, Erik Hersman,
co-founder of Ushahidi, illustrated how technology has provided tools for
interaction among ever-expanding networks. Technology is no longer used
only to send out information, but is instead used as a two-way communica-
tion channel and for the creation of dialogue among multiple parties. Such
community networking is replacing, to some degree, one-way communica-
tion by experts or authority figures.
Gaming is another information and communications technology that
has potential to influence behavioral change through empowerment, as
noted by speaker Ben Sawyer from Games for Health. For example, the
President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief has created a game to get
Kenyan youth engaged in HIV prevention. Speaker and planning commit-
tee member Jody Ranck of the Public Health Institute mentioned another
game, Owning Asthma, which enables youth with high rates of asthma to
figure out where they are when they encounter their triggers. The game
encourages their engagement with the politics of environmental pollution,
particularly in relation to race and class. Mr. Sawyer discussed Games for
Health as an example of organizations being able to identify, package, and
make available accessible tools that allow people to model and play with
health as a form of intervention. He said that when people think about
games, “it really starts . . . with an engaging and motivating experience,
but it also can be a supporting experience.” Games can give people models
and frameworks focused on concepts such as positive health behaviors that
they can use in their lives to make better choices.
Dr. Rosenberg discussed the paradox of disconnection. As people are
becoming more connected through technology, they have less face-to-face
time. Increasing our disconnectedness poses a risk, he said, because people
may be less cautious about hurting those they have not met or seen than
people they have met or seen. Other speakers spoke of technology as creat-
ing “trust” between groups who may never have met.
OCR for page 12
12 COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY FOR VIOLENCE PREVENTION
COMMUNITY BUILDING AND FLATTENING HIERARCHY
Interactive social media are facilitating the development of communities
from which ideas and innovative solutions to a wide array of problems can
emerge. Participation in these networks by individuals from different disci-
plines and backgrounds allows boundaries to be bridged and cross-cutting
ideas to develop. Social media are affecting societies and lowering barriers
and, in the process, disrupting the status quo of hierarchical structures.
The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline was presented by speaker
Ashley Womble as an example of a violence prevention initiative that is
utilizing ICT to carry out its work. Established in 2005 and focused on
the prevention of suicide, the hotline now receives about 2,200 calls per
day. Lifeline also works with Facebook to reach out to individuals who
have posted suicidal messages and refer them to a help center. It also has
an online space where users can create avatars, interact virtually, and share
their experiences.
Another example of a violence prevention initiative that is utilizing ICT
is Bell Bajao!, presented by speaker Eesha Pandit of Breakthrough, which
was established in India in 2008 to interrupt violence against women. The
campaign urges people who hear or notice domestic violence taking place
near their homes to ring the bell of the home where the disturbance is oc-
curring in order to alert the perpetrator that the community is watching
and does not condone the violence.
Mr. Hersman spoke about the ability of the new interactive technol-
ogy and the communities it helps build to bypass hierarchies and experts.
New technologies allow people to organize to solve their own problems.
Ushahidi arose in response to the post-election violence in Kenya in 2008,
and it allowed people to send reports of violence through the Web, which
could then be put on a public map. The technology was built by people
fascinated with innovation and driven by urgency, despite a lack of cre-
dentials, permissions, funding, and time. Mr. Hersman referred to the
space in which the most innovation takes places as “white space”—a place
“where the rules are vague, authority is fuzzy, strategy unclear, and budgets
non-existent.”
Speaker John Pollock of Technology Review described how, during
the Arab Spring, live-streaming created a space where people of all back-
grounds could meet to acquire and share information that could be used
to protect people and save lives. In situations of urgency, trust between
people who have never met can be built through technology. Skype, in
particular, provides a relatively secure environment in which to strengthen
relationships, raise profiles, raise funds, shape stories, and help journal-
ists get stories, quotations, and interviews. The flexibility of networks is a
tremendous advantage vis-à-vis hierarchical institutions, which can freeze
OCR for page 13
13
NEW COMMUNICATIONS
up in crisis situations. Mr. Pollock talked about the strength of diversity in
networks, saying, “monocultures collapse as soon as there’s rapid change.”
As several speakers noted, one of the key barriers to the use of new
technologies is the need for accompanying organizational change. Using
networking technologies with “analog mindsets and analog organizations”
is a challenge for organizations and individuals. Formal institutions may
take 2 years to gather data, making the information about a health problem
2 years old before it is released. The appearance of severe acute respiratory
syndrome, or SARS, brought about a change in response in managing a
rapidly spreading epidemic, and more such changes are needed. Reporting
information rapidly and acting on it quickly, whether the information con-
cerns post-election violence, rape, sexual harassment, or disease, requires
huge shifts in the ways institutions do their business.
Speaker Mick Fealty, founder of Slugger Consults, discussed the post-
conflict challenges Northern Ireland has faced in sustaining peace. There
was a huge loss of trust not only between the Catholic and Protestant
communities but also among those within each community who were most
affected by the conflict. In the early l990s, the advent of the digital age fa-
cilitated conversation beyond the power groups that negotiated ceasefires
and peace. Mr. Fealty set up a blog, Slugger O’Toole, through which those
outside the establishment could bypass politicians and the mainstream
media and speak directly to each other. In order to preserve the pluralism
of the conversation over the blog, Mr. Fealty established some rules, the
principal one being that participants had to stay with the argument and
not attack the other person. Mr. Fealty also felt that diversity was critical
to gaining new perspectives on old issues that already have champions who
do not want to be displaced. These conversations and connections take
power away from authorities and put it in the hands of the users. “This
is a show-me, not a tell-me paradigm,” he said. Mr. Fealty also discussed
consultation, which he said has to be part of the design of a solution, not
something that is done after a solution already has been proposed. People
want to have agency through partnerships built on trust.
Speaker John Gordon of Fenton said that social media allow an “ex-
traordinary degree of diversity.” People from across the socioeconomic and
socio-demographic spectrums self-organize. Mr. Pollock also noted that
the diversity is not just in identity, but also in cognition. Forum member
Rowell Huesmann of the University of Michigan agreed, saying that there
is also diversity of opinion and communication messages. He warned that
a consequence of the explosion of new information and communications
technology may be that each of us is exposed to less diversity of opinion,
as we focus more on what we want to hear; these platforms readily allow
these filters.
OCR for page 14
14 COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY FOR VIOLENCE PREVENTION
NEAR REAL-TIME DATA
Mr. Hersman stressed that technology is not a panacea and that it is
actually less important than the use case.1 He gave several examples. Ha-
rassmap, developed in Egypt, uses Medic:Mobile tools that receive messages
that are then mapped to show the public where sexual harassment is hap-
pening in Cairo. The beauty of these maps is that they are based on near
real-time data. Bully Mapper in Australia, Hollaback in the United States,
and ApartheidWatch in Israel and Palestine perform similar services. In In-
dia, Maps4Aid is tracking violence against women. PeaceTXT in Chicago
brings together people within the community who can interrupt violence,
with CeaseFire as the largest user.
In Benin, Plan International has focused on violence against children.
Kids or adults who see violence against children can send text messages to
alert the government and the police. There are plans to scale it up to eight
countries across the region. A new website called Street Watch Palestine
was launched in late 2011 to draw attention to harassment of women in
Ramallah, Palestine. Near real-time data make it possible to respond to a
problem almost immediately; it is no longer necessary to wait a long time
for information or data before interventions can be mounted.
Speaker Devon Halley of Deloitte Research GovLab (XBC) suggested
that the most powerful idea circulating now is the idea of turning citizens
into “sensors.” These sensors are low-cost, put forth a tremendous amount
of data, and they feed directly into the “here and the now.” Whether it is
through Twitter feeds or Facebook feeds or other mechanisms, “people are
putting a tremendous amount of information out there.” With technology,
it is now easy to set up networks or to detect patterns in datasets that one
might not otherwise recognize. These data can help people discover various
actionable areas or “hot spots to act in.”
COLLABORATION AND CONNECTION
Connections through today’s large networks can link those who deal
with specific types of violence, helping break down the barriers between
disciplines and different approaches to violence. Successful violence preven-
tion depends upon effective collaboration between public health agencies,
members of law enforcement, social services providers, educators, and
other actors. Linking those who work on prevention and treatment is also
important.
1 A use case describes the interaction between an actor or “user” (either a person or an
organization) and a system or enterprise.
OCR for page 15
15
NEW COMMUNICATIONS
Many speakers stated that collaboration is fundamental to finding in-
novative solutions to prevent violence. Mr. Hersman talked about the fact
that both networks and technological innovations are often created by peo-
ple driven to organize to resolve problems to which existing institutions are
not responsive. Dr. Rosenberg cited the need for establishing connections
between the officials who can respond to a problem and the people who are
reporting the violence as well as the need to incentivize participation and
reporting. At present, the connections between a citizen making a report
and the institutional responders are tentative or inconsistent, and a “trust
bridge”—a term offered by Mr. Hersman—should be formed between the
two sides. Huge institutional shifts might be required to form such connec-
tions and trust. Law enforcement is beginning to make this shift through
the combination of social media, citizen reporting, and police practice. Dr.
Viswanath cited the importance of institutions maintaining contact with
citizens, especially those under stress, so they have an ongoing connection.
Mr. Halley echoed other speakers, agreeing that the larger the network,
the more powerful it is, and that cross-boundary connections are impor-
tant for innovation. His remarks were based on a paper he co-authored,
“XBC: Creating Public Value by Unleashing the Power of Cross-Boundary
Collaboration.”2 The central questions that this work tries to answer are:
How can maximum value come from a network? What network structures
are best for which purpose? How does one manage structures, and what
should be considered in developing a network? Technologies for online col-
laboration can allow much larger numbers of people to become involved
than is possible with the traditional networks used to find information
or solve problems. Mr. Halley cited three steps that are at the heart of
cross-boundary collaboration: connect, innovate, and execute. Connections
break down barriers and increase the broad awareness of situations. When
organizations take advantage of connectivity, they can rapidly source in-
formation and solutions at lower cost. Given the transboundary issues and
complexity in the world today, Mr. Halley said an approach able to rapidly
handle complex situations is needed.
Dr. Rosenberg mentioned the important role that advocacy groups have
played in preventing and countering violence. Advocates began working to
prevent violence against women 35 years ago. Attention to HIV/AIDS was
galvanized by advocacy groups. Other types of violence prevention are now
being supported by emerging advocacy networks, often facilitated through
social media.
2 See http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-Global/Local%20Assets/Documents/Public%20
Sector/dtt_ps_xbc_060311.pdf.
OCR for page 16
16 COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY FOR VIOLENCE PREVENTION
BOX 2-1
Key Messages Raised by Individual Speakers
• se of information and communications technologies disrupts the flow of
U
information and hierarchies, with a transformational impact on society.
• n important barrier to the realization of the potential of new technologies is
A
the need for and resistance to organizational change.
• he use case is more important than the technology itself.
T
• he dialogue about the advantages, disadvantages, and dangers of commu-
T
nications in the field of violence prevention might benefit from greater stake-
holder prioritization.
REFERENCES
IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2008. Violence prevention in low- and middle-income countries.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund). 2011. Child safety online: Global challenges and
strategies. Florence, Italy: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. http://www.unicef-irc.org/
publications/pdf/ict_eng.pdf (accessed March 30, 2012).
