Implementation of Information and Communication Technology in Aboriginal Communities: A Social Capital Perspective
Javier Mignone
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Human Ecology
University of Manitoba
Heather Henley
Graduate student, Natural Resources Institute
University of Manitoba
Abstract
The paper provides a social capital framework to examine the implementation of ICT in Aboriginal communities. Using case descriptions from First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities, the paper discusses the potential opportunities offered by ICT in distinct fields, and analyzes from a social capital perspective the enabling and inhibiting conditions that seem to play a role in successful implementations of ICT in Aboriginal communities.
Résumé
L’article présente les grands axes du capital social en vue d’examiner la technologie de l’information et des communications (TIC) dans les communautés autochtones. À partir d’une série d’études de cas sur l’application de la TIC dans les communautés des Premières nations, des Inuits et des Métis, l’article passe en revue les éventuelles occasions qu’offre la TIC dans certains domaines, ainsi que les conditions favorables et défavorables qui semblent jouer sur la réussite des applications de la TIC dans les communautés autochtones.
Resumen
El artículo presenta un marco conceptual de capital social para examinar la implementación de tecnología informática y de comunicación en comunidades Aborígenes. Utilizando casos descriptivos de comunidades de Primeras Naciones, Inuit y Métis, el artículo analiza las oportunidades que la tecnología informática y de comunicación ofrece en diversas áreas, y estudia desde la perspectiva del capital social las condiciones que facilitan e inhiben su exitosa implementación en comunidades Aborígenes.
Keywords: information communication technology, Aboriginal, broadband networks, community networks, social capital.
Introduction
Increasingly, developments in information and communication technology (ICT) are having major impacts worldwide. Canada has witnessed in the last several years a significant growth in ICT opportunities, particularly in relation to online capabilities. Although ICT can be defined “as technologies that facilitate communication and processing and transmission of information by electronic means” (Ramírez, 2003), the focus of our study is on the implementation and use of computer and network hardware and software. A diverse number of Aboriginal communities have been part of this process. There are numerous experiences where the growth in ICT appears to be having an important impact on socio-economic realities. Nonetheless, there is still much that is unknown about what pre-requisites and types of investments allow for the successful implementation of community ICT networks. The notion of social capital, tentatively defined as the institutions, relationships and norms that shape the quality and quantity of society’s social interactions, can assist in understanding the factors that may enable the successful implementation of ICT in Aboriginal communities.
As part of a broader study, this paper seeks to address two main questions: How can investments in social capital positively affect the implementation of ICT networks? Does the type of social capital affect the impact that is achieved on ICT development? Building on prior work, the authors conducted an extensive review of the published and grey literature on social capital and on ICT implementation in Canada with a focus on Aboriginal communities. Together with the examination of existing literature, a series of phone interviews with 15 key informants from First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities and institutions in Canada were conducted to gather information on specific cases related to the development of ICT in Aboriginal communities.
An initial draft paper was written and distributed for feedback among 20 individuals from Aboriginal organizations, government agencies, and university units with experience in this area. Five roundtables were held in different regions of the country to gather further information, discuss the initiatives and receive feedback. These roundtables were held in Sioux Lookout, Ontario (K-net); Cranbrook, British Columbia (Ktunaxa); Iqaluit, Nunavut (Qiniq); Edmonton, Alberta (Métis settlements); and Winnipeg, Manitoba (urban Aboriginal agencies). The roundtables counted between nine and 11 participants each, excluding the research team. During the days of the roundtables, site visits to each initiative were conducted. Finally, in early 2008 a one-day national symposium was held in Winnipeg, Manitoba, with the participation of 23 key stakeholders, experts and practitioners from Aboriginal organizations and other relevant entities, to discuss the document and identify priority issues.
This paper reviews the theory of social capital as it applies to Aboriginal peoples in Canada and presents a social capital framework as a guide for examining its relation to ICT. The paper then presents a summary of case descriptions of ICT implementations in First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities, and one specifically related to urban settings. Using the case descriptions as the main background information, the paper discusses the potential opportunities offered by ICT in Aboriginal communities. With a social capital lens, the paper continues by analyzing enabling and inhibiting conditions that seem to play a role in successful implementations of ICT in Aboriginal communities. The final sections discuss the findings and provide a summary conclusion.
Social capital: An analytical framework
Social capital, to the extent that it is a property of the social environment, takes the form of a resource that consists of relationships. A common understanding among most authors is that social capital is a resource composed of a variety of elements, most notably social networks, social norms and values, trust, and shared resources (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992; Bourdieu, 1983; Loury, 1992; Putnam, Leonardi & Nanetti, 1993; Putnam, 2000; Woolcock, 1998a; Woolcock, 1998b; Woolcock & Narayan, 2000; Narayan, 1999; Schuller, Baron, & Field, 2000; Lin, 2001). It would appear to enable a number of positive societal outcomes within the specific boundaries of particular levels of society (Coleman, 1988; Coleman, 1990).
Social capital has been studied in relation to education, labour markets (Department of Economics, 1999), local economic development (Midgley & Livermore, 1998), microfinance (Rankin, 2002), sustainable community development (Dale, 2005), economic performance (Casey & Christ, 2005), health (Kawachi, et al., 1997; Gooden, 1998; Veenstra, 2000; Rose, 2000; Campbell, Williams, & Gilgen, 2002; Bolin, Lindgren, Lindström, & Nystedt, 2003), identity, transition to work (Fevre, 2000), communicative competence and human resources (Szreter, 2000), among numerous other outcomes. More recently, studies specific to social capital and ICT have appeared. A multidisciplinary volume (Huysman & Wulf, 2004) compiles a series of articles that examine this relationship from the fields of computer sciences, sociology, communication studies, business economics, and management studies. One of these papers (Quan-Haase & Wellman, 2004) argues that the effects of the internet on social capital can be conceptualized from three broad approaches: the internet transforms social capital (Barlow, et al., 1995; Wellman et al., 2001), the internet diminishes social capital (Nie 2001; Nie, Hillygus, & Erbring, 2002), the internet supplements social capital (Quan-Haase & Wellman, 2002; Chen, Boase, & Wellman, 2002). Among the initial studies that have specifically looked at the impact of ICT on social capital, one of them (Norris, 2003) concludes that the internet seems to widen the experience of community, and the other (Steinmueller, 2004) that social networks are influenced by (and influence) ICTs. What has not been studied is social capital as a function in the successful implementation of community ICT.
Research concerning social capital and Aboriginal peoples picked up pace starting the year 2000. Levitte (2004) researched social capital in the context of Aboriginal economic development in Canada. Social capital was used to analyze traditional forms of Indigenous governance (Hunter, 2000; Schwab & Sutherland, 2001), sustainable development (Altman, 2001), welfare reform (Smith, 2001), and Indigenous learning communities (Schwab & Sutherland, 2001). The concept of social capital has also assisted in the understanding of the disconnect between the management of waste in nine First Nations communities in Northwest British Columbia and their traditional relationship with the land (Moody & Cordua-von Specht, 2005).
ICT and social capital are normally discussed as associated with economic development. The relationship between social capital and entrepreneurship has been explored by scholars (Portes & Landolt, 2000) who have pointed to the ability of social networks to pull together financial and other material resources for business development on the one hand, and to apply pressures on entrepreneurs on the other. Social networks have been highlighted as of importance in overcoming challenges to entrepreneurship, such as access to training, access to markets, and the negotiation of community values and norms. (Levitte, 2004). Gertler and Levitte (2005) show that to be innovative and commercially successful, Canadian biotech firms must reach out to both their local and global networks to access both knowledge and capital. The same can be said of Aboriginal businesses. Woolcock (1998a) asserts that strong relationships with formal institutions are instrumental in that they allow groups to access resources, ideas, and information from institutions of power. Dale (2005) argues that “sustainable communities depend on the formation and maintenance of networks, particularly at the bridging and linking level, in order to build any of the imperatives and capital.” Evans (1996) believes that the obstacles that poor communities face stem from their members’ inability to ‘scale up’ micro-level social capital and social action to a politically and economically effective level. Levitte (2004) identifies several barriers to Aboriginal business development: access to start-up and growth financing; access to skills such as business training and trained labour force; access to markets and marketing strategies.
Some authors argue that a “socio-technological approach” is needed to analyze the relationship between information technology and social capital (Huysman & Wulf, 2004b). The following paragraphs provide a social capital framework to help analyze what investments are required from a social capital perspective to achieve the successful implementation of ICT.
Mignone and colleagues (2003a; 2003b; 2004) formulated a conceptual framework of social capital for First Nations communities and developed a culturally appropriate instrument for its measurement. The operational definition of Social Capital derived from the study was the following:
Social capital characterizes a community based on the degree that its resources are socially invested, that it presents an ethos of trust, norms of reciprocity, collective action, and participation, and that it possesses inclusive, flexible and diverse networks. Social capital of a community is assessed through a combination of its bonding (within group relations), bridging (inter-community ties), and linking (relations with formal institutions) dimensions.1
Bonding social capital refers to internal community relations. It addresses the networks, ethos, and socially invested resources within a particular society, community or group in question, i.e., the intra-community ties. Bridging social capital is essentially a horizontal notion, implying connections between societies, communities or groups, i.e., the inter-community ties. Linking social capital refers to a vertical dimension, i.e., the relations with formal institutions beyond the community. Specifically to our study, bonding social capital refers to relations within each Aboriginal community. Bridging refers to horizontal links with other communities, be they other Aboriginal communities, or other communities of place (e.g., urban centres). Linking refers to connections between particular Aboriginal communities and institutions like federal/provincial government departments and public/private corporations (e.g., Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Industry Canada, Manitoba Hydro, private ICT companies, banks).
Table 1 summarizes the social capital framework, showing each dimension as consisting of the three components and their descriptors. For socially invested resources (SIR) the descriptors are physical, symbolic, financial, human or natural. The central notion is that these resources are socially invested, i.e., that they are potentially accessed by, or of potential future benefit to, any member of the community. Each descriptor captures the resource investment at a particular stage of its development. The term ethos (in the sense of character or disposition of a community) is used to capture the notions of trust, norms of reciprocity, collective action, and participation. Networks are understood as “structures of recurrent transactions” (Aldrich, 1982) and are described according to their inclusiveness, diversity, and flexibility.
The distinction between the three dimensions of bonding, bridging, and linking captures the social reality of Aboriginal communities in terms of their intra and inter-community and institutional interactions. Communities do not exist in isolation and their potential stocks of social capital must express this reality because, as Woolcock (1999) indicates, “different combinations of these dimensions might yield different outcomes.” The model considers social capital to be a feature of communities, with the caveat that the community of which it is a feature must be clearly delimited.
Table 1: Social Capital Framework
Bonding
SIR* Ethos Networks
Physical Trust Inclusive
Symbolic Norms of Reciprocity Flexibility
Financial Collective Action Diverse
Human Participation
Natural
Bridging
SIR Ethos Networks
Physical Trust Inclusive
Symbolic Norms of Reciprocity Flexibility
Financial Collective Action Diverse
Human Participation
Natural
Linking
SIR Ethos Networks
Physical Trust Inclusive
Symbolic Norms of Reciprocity Flexibility
Financial Collective Action Diverse
Human Participation
Natural
*SIR = Socially Invested Resources
Case description summaries
This section summarizes five case studies. The cases were selected so as to include First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities and organizations, along with one case that covered ICT Aboriginal experiences in an urban setting. As well, the cases were chosen from different regions of the country.
K-Net (Ontario)
K-Net (the Kuh-ke-nah Network) in northwestern Ontario is an Aboriginal owned community ICT network that provides access to the internet in a sparsely populated region --approximately one person per square kilometre. Many communities in this region are only accessible by small aircraft and most do not have year round road access. The populations of the communities range between 300 and 900 residents.
K-Net provides telecommunications services to 23 remote First Nations as well as 11 Points of Presence (PoPs) in central and southwestern Ontario. K-Net also has PoPs in several urban centres including Sioux Lookout, Thunder Bay, Timmins, and Toronto. PoPs assist in supporting the various technological applications available through K-Net. Each First Nation community manages and operates a Municipal Area Network (MAN). Today K-Net consists of satellite and wireless technologies and utilizes the backbone infrastructure of networks such as Bell Canada.
K-Net was initially conceived as a bulletin board system (BBS) to provide support from family and friends via text messaging to children who were living away from the community to complete their schooling. The service was quickly picked up by schools and additional communities in the region and later expanded to offer broadband internet and ICT services to communities. K-Net is currently part of the Northern Indigenous Community Satellite Network (NICSN) along with the Kativik Regional Government in Quebec, and the Keewatin Tribal Council in Manitoba. Infrastructure Canada has announced funding for the NICSN project that will extend K-Net services to residents in 43 northern communities.
To date, K-Net has successfully engaged in telehealth, innovative distance education, computer training and skills development for community members and community networking. Additionally, K-Net facilitates multipoint videoconferencing and quality of service support for counterpart networks in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, and the Maritimes (Fiser, Clement, & Walmark, 2005: 14).
Métis Connectivity (Alberta)
The Métis Nation of Alberta (MNA) has recently (2006) connected their 17 provincial offices via high speed fibre infrastructure (Métis Nation of Alberta, 2007). The Métis communities in Alberta differ in relation to connectivity, adoption of technology, etc. The money available to fund connectivity projects also differs substantially by community. Alberta’s SuperNet, a high speed broadband network has the ability to connect 429 communities across the province (Government of Alberta, 2005). SuperNet has enabled people living in rural areas to benefit from the same opportunities enjoyed by those living in urban centres (Bell Canada, 2003). However, not all Métis communities have benefited from this infrastructure. According to the Aboriginal Canada Portal (Government of Canada, 2006) five of the eight Métis communities in Alberta were reported to have PoPs onsite with the remaining three having high speed internet connections.
Smaller Métis communities were not interested in having access to the SuperNet due to the cost of activating or “lighting-up” the PoP coupled with the cost of maintenance and administration. For some communities the overhead cost was too large an amount to take from their monthly operating budget. On the other hand, some communities have made the decision to bare the cost and become involved.
Qiniq (Nunavut)
The Qiniq network provides high speed internet services to 25 Inuit communities in Nunavut. The deployment of broadband required a unique solution as the geography of the region makes it impossible to develop the basic backbone infrastructure utilized for these purposes in the south. In Nunavut there are “no highways, no power or phone lines, no fibre optic networks, and no microwave relays linking communities” and the most common method of supplying communities with goods is air or barge (Qiniq, 2005).
The Qiniq network in Nunuvut is a satellite and wireless broadband network. The network uses full mesh connectivity that supports voice and videoconferencing technologies. The network is based on dynamic bandwidth technology through which bandwidth is allocated as needed to optimize the performance of the network. Transparent web caches and IP accelerators are used to maximize performance and reduce the impact of satellite latency. The wireless solution is based on non-line off-sight technology and is licensed for greater broadcast power.
The Nunavut Broadband Development Corporation (NBDC) was formed as a non profit organization interested in establishing internet services in Nunavut communities and consisted of Nunavut government officials, Inuit organizations, and private sector companies. It was able to secure funding from Industry Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. The initial funding enabled the NBDC to produce the business case for broadband in Nunavut and was also used to develop infrastructure. The total cost to build the network was $9 million of which Industry Canada’s BRAND program contributed $3.4 million.
In every Nunavut community one local person received training to be able to install wireless modems, handle basic troubleshooting and involve people in the initiative. This person is called a Community Service Provider (CSP). Involving local people was seen as one of the key factors in achieving success. As of 2007, one-quarter of all internet subscribers, approximately 3,600 people or 12% of the population in Nunavut have subscribed and are using the Qiniq network.
Ktunaxa Nation Network (British Columbia)
The Ktunaxa Nation Broadband Network is located in south eastern British Columbia. The area covered is 17,871 square kilometres and includes 13,989 people, 8,602 dwellings, 182 businesses, five band locations, and 58 unincorporated communities (Ktunaxa Nation, 2005). The network was initially conceived as a means through which to disseminate the disappearing Ktunaxa language, of which there are approximately 30 speakers left. Ktunaxa successfully applied for funding with Industry Canada’s BRAND program, to the amount of $3.8 million.
The Ktunaxa Nation network includes fibre to the user and 15 wireless towers that span the East Kootenays. The backbone infrastructure that supports the network is owned by Telus and has been provided for use to Ktunaxa through an agreement with NetworkBC and the First Nations Technology Council. The customer premise equipment needed to connect each home to the internet (the internet modem) was purchased from Packetfront Data and installed in every home as part of the infrastructure project.
Ktunaxa has recently been selected as a model community network for the Fully Integrated Technological (FIT) community program. It has also fully utilized the resources of the FirstVoices initiative. In February of 2008, two of four planned community learning centres were opened in Ktunaxa communities as a result of a partnership with the University of British Columbia. (Slonowski, 2008).
Urban Aboriginal Initiatives (Winnipeg, Manitoba)
Urban centres in Canada are, for the most part, well equipped with connectivity infrastructure. Urban connectivity hardware varies across Canada and may include satellite, fibre, wireless and other technologies. In urban centres, access to the internet and computers can be seen as a function of income or the ability to purchase a computer, the necessary software, and a connection to the internet. In Winnipeg, under the project name LearningCiti, wireless corridors have been created in several central locations to provide free wireless internet service in high traffic and sometimes low income areas. LearningCiti operates in conjunction with another program called the Computer Lending Library, which is an educational digital information literacy program aimed to increase the technological skills of new immigrants, Aboriginal people and others.
The program “Computers for Schools” in Winnipeg was initially created to provide computers to schools in Winnipeg and technological training for young people. The program also assists in facilitating the recycling of computers and other computer equipment. The Wiichiwakanak Learning Centre provides culturally relevant programs to Aboriginals in Winnipeg and has integrated the use of computers and technology into their programming. The centre has 20 computers, Cree language courses, and a homework program.
Opportunities offered by ICT to Aboriginal communities
Better access to ICTs in Aboriginal communities has the potential to enhance opportunities in a range of areas, many interrelated. The main ones are education, economic development, health, cultural continuity, governance, services, socializing and leisure.
Education
Increased connectivity opens the way to a variety of educational opportunities, both within formal and informal settings. High speed internet classrooms can offer different means for delivery of instruction. Students can access online content that may assist them in their studies. Northern communities have limited access to libraries. Internet access can provide remote access to library materials. Many Aboriginal communities have difficulty attracting and retaining qualified teachers. Videoconferencing allows teachers in higher grade levels to teach students while physically distant using a two-way broadcast. For example, science may be taught by a teacher from community A while being broadcast to communities B, C, and D, and math may be taught by a teacher from community B while being broadcast to communities A, C, and D. Further, children who currently must leave their home community to attend high school could complete their schooling via on-line classes. Also, adults can more readily complete high school education from home. Continuing education and higher education is also facilitated with internet connectivity (Walmark, O'Donnell, & Beaton, 2005).
One example of the educational successes that have resulted from internet connectivity and various technological applications is the Kewaytinook Internet High School (KiHS) which is connected through K-Net. In the 2000/1 school year, when the KiHS was introduced only 30 students were enrolled and the number of course credits granted were 53. In the 2003/4 school years, 141 students were enrolled and 269 course credits were granted. The courses provided are for secondary students in grades nine and ten as well as some adult education courses. Providing courses for grade nine and ten students enables these children to remain home during critical years of maturation. The main differences between internet high school and the previously available distance education are the interactive component and the aspect of having a structured classroom environment and the supervision of a teacher resident from their community (Fiser, Clement, & Walmark, 2005).
The experimental projects currently being conducted by the Broadband Visual Communication (BVC) and the Communications Research Centre (CRC), using high speed networks in schools in Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities in rural, urban and remote areas are particularly instructive of future capabilities. The experience of Music Grid, where music education was delivered to a remote northern Quebec Inuit community was particularly successful. This education included violin, piano, throat singing, and traditional drum dancing. Success in student learning was noticeable, and the ICT capabilities allowed for Christmas concerts to be transmitted where relatives in different communities took part in it together.
The opportunities for continuing education have improved due to online capabilities. For instance in Nunavut communities there has been a steady increase by small business owners in pursuing training in business related topics through online courses. Also, academic institutions can offer online and modular advanced education programs to staff working in social and health agencies in Aboriginal communities.
Economic development
There are a number of Aboriginal business development barriers that ICT can play a role in reducing. The barriers more amenable to be directly countered by ICT are access to markets and access to skills. However, barriers to financing and capital may also be indirectly impacted by ICT. In today’s business environment, access to broadband connectivity is an essential requirement to achieve some degree of a level playing field.
The internet can open businesses to the global economy where original products, such as
Aboriginal arts and crafts, tourism opportunities, and virtually any other product or service can be viewed and purchased from afar. A good example is that of carvers in Nunavut, that have a much better return on their products when they sell them through E-Bay. Tourism companies in Nunavut are conducting almost 95% of their business online. In a reserve near Cranbrook, BC, an 82 year old man was selling teepees online to New Zealand, Tasmania, Japan, Israel, etc. He also bought some of his materials, such as canvas and sewing machine parts, online. Healing centres could more easily promote their activities and even conduct some activities online or by videoconferencing.
Business opportunities are not only related to tradition-based products and services. Service industries such as call centres could be run from remote communities. Contractors can more readily access calls for proposals and submit their proposals. Access to high speed internet coupled with ICT training has a profound effect on the way in which companies do business. ICT in itself can become a business opportunity. The sole Aboriginal-owned telecommunications company in Canada, enTel (operating in British Columbia) is a prime example. Other economic development initiatives such as golf courses, eco-tourism, resorts, wineries (as is the case of the Osoyoos Indian Band in British Columbia), are enhanced by good connectivity.
Training individuals from the community in ICT serves to increase community capacity and job opportunities. Putting infrastructure in place to address the different ICT needs of for example band administration, schools, health centres, ISPs, etc., requires first level technical support, which is particularly suitable as job opportunities for young people with appropriate training. Some initiatives such as telehealth have created jobs such as telehealth coordinator, project managers, and technicians. Eventually, ICT support and software development companies can emerge in Aboriginal communities.
Health
Telehealth has been made possible by broadband connectivity. It links patients from remote and isolated communities with physicians and specialists located in urban centres. Telehealth reduces the need for people to leave the community for regular doctor’s visits. It can significantly reduce costs for certain health services. For example, eliminating the need to fly one patient from an isolated community to an urban centre for a medical examination can save at least $7,000.
A telehealth station is managed by a Community telehealth Coordinator (CTC). These positions are awarded to members of the community who are given specialized training in the operation and maintenance of the telehealth station. Case studies have shown that the most successful way to implement CTC training is to employ an ICT technician who can facilitate the operation of the telehealth station to perform the duties of the CTC in the community while a community member job shadows and gradually assumes responsibility for the daily operations of the station (Fiser, Clement, & Walmark, 2005). “On-going professional development is key to the success of this application” (Walmark, O'Donnell, & Beaton, 2005). Employing community members in this initiative is also imperative and provides a greater sense of ownership of the program and the physical space which results in more successful outcomes when compared with other health programs operated by people from outside the community (Walmark, O'Donnell, & Beaton, 2005).
Additionally, internet access enables the community to obtain heath information and the telehealth professionals can disseminate significant health information to interested members of the community. With increased connectivity there is more opportunity for dissemination and discussion at the community level of health research results, as well as active participation of communities in the research itself. Further, increased connectivity can facilitate to some extent the exchange of knowledge on traditional healing practices.
Cultural continuity
There are a variety of ways in which broadband connectivity can assist in the preservation of culture and language. For example, an online Oji-Cree dictionary has been developed. “The online dictionary provides one way to preserve and utilize this original language in all aspects of local education and service programs” (Beaton, Fiddler, & Rowlandson, 2004). Also, K-Net, in northwestern Ontario has created syllabic computer keyboards in which the layout is in Oji-Cree and Cree in order to involve elders who do not speak English with computers and ICT applications (Fiser, Clement, & Walmark, 2005). One of the current concerns surrounding Aboriginal culture is that native languages are being lost. Technology offers one method of preserving traditional language and culture for future generations: digitally recording the traditional stories of elders. A prime example is First Voices, a free web-based program that seeks to preserve Aboriginal languages across the world. Similar technology is being used to preserve precious artefacts, as the U’msta Cultural Centre in British Columbia is doing with its mask collection, among other traditional items. The interactive features of online cultural studies enhance their educational impact, particularly among young people.
Certain impacts of ICT are plausibly detrimental to cultural continuity. The effects of pop culture for example may increase its potential, particularly among youth. Nonetheless, this is not a particularly new phenomenon and the main attitude among Aboriginal leadership is that the tide is unavoidable and should consequently be dealt with by seizing it and transforming it into positive opportunities.
Governance
Another application of a broadband network is videoconferencing. The cost of bringing people together for meetings is sometimes prohibitively expensive. Videoconferencing reduces the need to travel and allows people who want to participate to remain in their community while still taking part in conference discussions. This can be particularly useful for meetings involving leadership or representatives from different communities. Aboriginal people living in urban settings that want to continue participating in matters of their communities can do so by videoconferencing assemblies, etc. Some First Nations communities are also considering the possibility of online voting. Further, videoconferencing has international applications. For example, in 2005 a conference held in Balmertown, Ontario, that included researchers, graduate students, policy makers, and Aboriginal leadership joined people at multiple sites across three time zones using videoconferencing (Walmark, O'Donnell, & Beaton, 2005).
Other possibilities refer to collecting and mapping data particularly relevant to land claim and treaty negotiations. Geographic information systems (GIS) have been used to prove the historical connection to a certain territory. Data of this type can also be used for better administration of resources of the land and sea (e.g., to help sustain and rebuild fisheries, for trap-lines, etc.). During negotiations, ICT allows for more fluid communication by sharing drafts and documents or having online side-meetings in between formal meetings with government.
Services
In communities with increased connectivity, services such as banking and shopping are now done online. For example out of the 25 Nunavut communities there are only three with banks. Consequently, online banking becomes a particularly relevant service. Online shopping has the potential of reducing costs given the possibility of wider price options.
Community services can also be enhanced through online capabilities. Illustrative of this is the Ktunaxa Nation in British Columbia where 120 computers from all agencies in the community (school, social services, band administration, health centre, etc) are connected in one information system. This integration of the information from the different agencies has increased efficiencies and level of services.
Socializing and leisure
Many families, particularly in remote communities are using the internet to communicate with other family members in different parts of Canada. Family members that relocated to the cities are better able to keep in touch. With increased videoconferencing capacities this may prove to be a strong socializing tool. Online chatting, “facebook”, “twitter”, homepages, blogs, etc., particularly among young people, are entering into widespread usage.
The options for leisure activities dramatically increase. Similar to anywhere else in the world there are multiple opportunities ranging from participation in group chat sites, games, news, different forms of entertainment, hobbies, etc. The impact on leisure is, however, often seen as a potential source of concern because it may increase isolation of an individual within a family or community, increase risk behaviours among youth, and addictive behaviours of different kinds.
Investments and conditions for successful community ICT implementation: A social capital analysis
If a “successful” implementation of ICT in Aboriginal communities means the development of sustainable ICT capabilities that tangibly serve the well-being of the communities, from a social capital perspective, success would be understood as the sustainable implementation that strengthens the communities themselves. What follows briefly examines two related issues: the conditions that seem to facilitate the successful implementation of ICT and the social capital investments that make its success more likely.
One simple but pervasive issue is that of the cost of computers and of service. Cost both at the investment and service level, and cost at the individual user level. The latter relates to the true possibilities of impoverished families to purchase home computers. For equitable ICT implementation, the lack of access to computers by significant segments of populations may in fact play a negative impact on community social capital. If a community becomes more reliant on ICT capabilities, those without adequate access may become increasingly marginalized from social and information networks, from possibilities of participation, and from opportunities such as ongoing education, etc. For Aboriginals in urban settings, where ICT infrastructure may be good, cost may be the most significant limitation to access. There are initiatives that can be implemented to address this issue, and they need to be taken into account in ICT implementation plans. One example is an Australian program “computers for schools and homes” which supplies refurbished computers. In Canada there is a similar program called “computers for schools and libraries” but it is not for households. There are recent developments in hardware that may bring to full production low-cost computers geared to online capabilities (Markoff, 2006; AP, 2007). A study assessing the digital divide of Indigenous communities in Australia (Daly, 2005) describes the development of community online access centres as another way of bridging this divide.
The other cost related issue is that of investment. Private companies such as MTS and Shaw determine whether or not a business case exists to establish backbone infrastructure in an area. These companies see remote and sparsely populated communities as not worth their investment. Consequently, governments’ involvement is absolutely necessary to ensure that infrastructure investment will take place. As an example, the 30 communities north of the 53rd parallel in Manitoba were unable to provide private companies with the high population counts and an economic base to project potential profits. The province of Manitoba working with these communities and with funding from both the Manitoba Canada Infrastructure Program and Industry Canada’s BRAND and NSI programs, together with matching funds of 50% from the communities, other funding organizations and private entities, enabled the very recent achievement of broadband connectivity. This very well exemplifies the socially invested resources aspect of social capital, particularly from a bridging and linking perspective.
If communities are to risk their limited resources in ICT infrastructure and services when they may be lacking in basic infrastructure such as housing, water, sewage, etc., they must clearly see it as a possibility for socioeconomic development. Understandably, communities that have experienced expensive and unsuccessful earlier attempts to obtain connectivity are reluctant to undertake this again. The regaining of trust through, for instance the development of multi-sectorial ICTs where community leadership has the ultimate say is essential. Bridging social capital, where there is learning from how other Aboriginal communities have tackled ICT implementation, is paramount. As an example, for some communities to jump from $20 per month dial-up to owning a PoP (point of presence) and then building their own ISP, would benefit significantly from learning how this was done by over 100 First Nations,.
Another option is where bridging social capital organizations that look after the interests of a group of First Nations (such as MKO in Manitoba) may act to achieve economies of scale. An example would be where the price of customer premise equipment (CPE) came down from $1200 to $800 a piece when sold to 30 communities. Nonetheless, there are instances where very small and isolated communities may need to rely more on linking socially invested resources and where thus the solution is to share bandwidth with the RCMP office, the school, etc. Another significant cost issue is the satellite expense for communities that cannot rely on fibre optics or microwave towers connections. For these cases linking infrastructure investments are also necessary.
An alternative approach has been to make arrangements with private telecommunications companies together with some government involvement. Understanding that it is unlikely that there will ever be a large economic base for numerous First Nations communities in British Columbia, the provincial government engineered a deal with TELUS where they now provide connectivity to 119 communities by supplying 10 megabit connections into those communities at a price of either, $150, $300, or $450 per month depending on population size. This creates a business case for connectivity and from there organizations such as the FNTC are able to promote small grants to the communities for last mile solutions developed at the community level and run by volunteers or by local entrepreneurs.
Again, from a socially invested resources perspective, it is difficult to argue against understanding connectivity as a basic infrastructure issue for socio-economic development. An aspect of linking social capital refers to social investments at differing institutional levels. As roads are considered infrastructure at any level of government, broadband infrastructure is now a necessary condition for the successful implementation of ICT in Aboriginal communities. Equity in infrastructure for connectivity matters more than ever. Particularly from a bridging social capital point of view it matters that inequities are not increased across Aboriginal communities or between Aboriginal communities and others. Granted, urban and rural or remote environments are quite different worlds, especially in how they relate to population density (smaller markets) and cost of extending ICT accessibility (higher costs related to geography). Nonetheless, as has traditionally been the case with postal services, basic social and economic participation requires public investment to serve areas that the market by itself will not cover. The role of the CRTC in imposing certain regulations to counter these potential inequities is essential. A recently published United Nations report on the information economy (2006) indicated that although the growth of broadband is largely due to competition and declining prices, it also depends on the available infrastructure. It further states that when there is a lack of economies of scale,
“the incentive to expand broadband infrastructure outside urban areas is low. Wireless technology and satellites can help circumvent the cost of infrastructure for sparsely populated, remote or rural areas. Governments have an important role to play in improving access to broadband through infrastructure and policy.”
Another key prerequisite and social capital investment relates to capacity building and human resource development, particularly at the community level. From a linking perspective, when government departments such as Industry Canada, Human Resource Development, Indian Affairs, and Health Canada, orchestrate cooperative efforts between departments, it maximizes the possibility of skill development needed for successful ICT implementation at the community level.
Among the investments required for successful ICT implementation is the training of community-based users that is up-to-date and ongoing. A recent study on Aboriginal students and the digital divide (Deane & Sullivan, 2006) explored the role of non-formal learning in the inner-city of Winnipeg. It concluded that Aboriginal students tended to undervalue their general levels of skill and knowledge in information technology. It found that although many students did not have a computer at home, they had learned ICT skills in non-formal situations more than they had in the classroom. This suggests the role of peer social capital, and emphasizes the need to also invest in non-formal settings to bridge the digital divide.
Other necessary approaches are ones such as the Manitoba First Nations SchoolNet youth initiative funded by Industry Canada. In the past year this program gathered 25 youth from across Manitoba in Winnipeg for two weeks of intensive training in technical ICT support, followed by 15 weeks of supervised work experience in the community. It has repeatedly been stated that it is of relatively little use to spend money on technical infrastructure without a parallel investment in building human capacity. This includes capacity building that may help communities better identify how ICT can assist them in social, cultural and economic ways.
Many Aboriginal communities already have individuals with the needed ICT technical capacity. However, there is increased need for more trained people. Individuals with technical skills that are able to fix the connexion with the satellite, to reboot the server, to service home connections, etc., are essential. Although many are self-taught, investment in formal training programs at various levels is necessary. For instance technically certified individuals with at least 100 hours of class time, and anywhere from three to six months of supervised practice is a minimum needed by communities. This illustrates a required level of investment that many communities are still not able to achieve.
For particular ICT initiatives such as the Music Grid example, a necessary condition for its successful implementation is not simply the technical. In this case, capacity building around a new type of role (that of a pedagogical project organization manager) appears to be necessary. As yet, school boards do not offer this kind of training nor do job descriptions support teachers in this capacity. For example in Nunavik there are 14 communities, seven of which now have videoconferencing capabilities in their schools, but only one of them has a pedagogical facilitator. This has severely limited classes using videoconferencing. For schools to successfully implement ICT capabilities, new staff roles and training are required.
Another necessary investment is to provide some basic level of computer literacy to new users. Particularly in remote communities, the proportion of users without any prior computer experience is high. Training programs at this basic level can increase true accessibility for a wider segment of community members.
Community leadership’s role in the implementation of ICT is associated with its success. For instance in First Nations, Chief and Council have a role in enabling the basic infrastructure to be set up. They can also play a significant role in capacity building. Developing an ICT implementation plan can facilitate this education component and also ensure that the businesses and organizations within the First Nation utilize the infrastructure. Self-government is essential for successful ICT development plans. A solid plan can prevent being taken advantage of by vendors and others. It has been stated that the community has to have control and ownership over this implementation. There have been many problems when the community feels that outside companies or organizations are telling them what to do. When community leadership achieves the organizational capacity to takes ownership of these types of initiatives, the most positive results are seen.
Community “buy-in” is essential for a successful implementation including as a tool for socio-economic development. Elders’ opinions are important. Many of the communities with successful implementations have had elders embracing this possibility while at the same time connecting it to the need to preserve traditional identity. ICT appears to be most useful in communities that consider it not as a panacea, but as another tool that, under community guidance, can increase their capabilities. Conferences of Community Service Providers (CSP) as the ones held in Nunavut enabled local people to share their ideas of what types of services would provide the most benefit for their home community and what types of knowledge would be needed for them to perform their function as a CSP. This type of resource investment both from a bonding and bridging perspective, essentially involving local people in initial discussions, was identified as a key factor in the programs success.
Bridging social capital opportunities is exemplified in what MKO (a northern First Nations organization of Manitoba) did when it partnered with BCN to learn from them since they had been successful applicants to Industry Canada programs. MKO also took the bridging approach of making its ICT initiative a northern Manitoba project, including non-First Nations communities. This had benefits of economies of scale and made telecommunications upgrading less expensive.
Loss of trust by communities that had bad initial ICT experiences (often being left with financial losses and failed systems) has increased their reticence at being involved in new ICT initiatives. A slow process of rebuilding trust was essential for them in this area. Learning from failed experiences is valuable. When FNIHB first piloted telehealth in the early 1990’s in Northern Ontario, it was mainly piloted from a technological perspective. It did not take properly into consideration the perspective of health workers, professionals, and the community. Health care workers were not appreciative of programs just dropping in technology without proper consultation or capacity building for this new health care tool. The lack of physician buy-in crippled the program. The communities were also suspicious that telehealth was a way of taking doctors and nurses out of the communities. Again, linking social capital, in this case in the form of trust is essential.
What have been called “community champions” play an essential role in the successful implementation of ICT. Whether they are health personnel or band leadership, etc., the fact that they provide presentations and demonstrations of leadership to community members, as well as conducting community consultations, appear to make a crucial difference in gaining trust and driving the initiatives.
Budget cuts from the federal government have apparently reduced support for some ICT initiatives, consequently decreasing public investment opportunities. Another linking social capital difficulty is that most government backed ICT programs are short term. For these initiatives to prosper there has to be a notion of long term investment. Relations of Aboriginal communities with the private sector or corporations for the implementation of ICT initiatives are also essential for success. Finally, universities are players that can have an important role.
Discussion
The case descriptions seemed to support the idea that higher levels of bonding, bridging and linking social capital facilitated the establishment of Aboriginal connectivity networks. As evidenced by most of these cases, there has been (and is) a hard struggle to not only develop but to sustain the networks. However, they have to-date shown remarkable success in uptake, usage, membership, etc. Community leadership, an aspect of bonding social capital, has been one of the key factors in their development. Learning from, and sharing with, other initiatives (bridging) also has proven to be very valuable. Access to government programs and relations with corporations were very important. Nonetheless, these linking social capital aspects were (and are) somewhat unstable and present one of the potential barriers for sustainability.
The examination of the ICT initiatives suggested that although the what of connectivity mattering, it is the how of connectivity that seems to make the most difference in terms of community social capital. In other words, the “ownership of the means of production” (in our case the ownership of the networks) clearly relates to increased community social capital at the bonding, bridging and linking levels.
K-Net, Ktunaxa, and Qiniq showed Aboriginal organizations taking control over the what and the how of ICT by responding to the realities of the communities, and in the process strengthening them. Ktunaxa was born from concern at the loss of the traditional language, Qiniq emerged from the vision of a practical initiative to decrease the isolation of communities, and K-Net started as a response to the need to maintain contact with the youth that were leaving the communities to further their education. These initiatives required strong internal (bonding) investments, well crafted bridging relations among the communities and other Aboriginal organizations, and the use of the potential linking investments of government programs. Among the latter, the sometimes positive, sometime contentious, linking relations with private and public corporations played an important role. Aboriginal community networks were developed by local people to meet community needs, and in the process community capacity was created in the development of business plans and in their actual implementation. The use of technology by individuals and groups and the social learning that takes place in the adoption of a new technology appeared to create social capital. Youth are generally the first to adopt new technologies and in turn teach their parents and elders computer and internet skills. Time spent learning new skills and connecting with people to disseminate new skills may also create social capital. For instance, in Nunavut when the Qiniq network was first launched, CSPs in each community would offer to provide information about computers and the internet and how to use the technology and equipment. This created connections between people who (even in small communities) may not have known each other, or did not have a reason to connect prior to the introduction of Qiniq. Community networks have much at stake in developing active implementers of the technology, rather than passive consumers of connectivity.
The development of connectivity infrastructure by private companies is essentially determined by their business cases. As well, the private company model assumes minimal community involvement and training. This type of network is planned in such a way that the maintenance personnel come into the community to perform maintenance or solve technical problems. However, it is costly to bring technicians to fly-in communities and generally this type of maintenance requires that the community pay for the transportation and accommodations of the technicians. High maintenance and infrastructure costs often result in a network that is non-operational. In many cases, the private company may own infrastructure not far from the community and promote the service while asking the community to pay for the last mile of connectivity. In numerous occasions Aboriginal communities have been sold substandard equipment from a private company that cannot be maintained, which resulted in network connections not being utilized because of equipment failures. Many private companies have proven to be “fly by night” and once the money is gone from the community the company does not return to ensure that its systems are operational. This decreases linking social capital as the communities become reluctant, as a consequence of negative experiences, to new attempts.
Government health care ICT initiatives in Aboriginal communities had limited success when communities and other stakeholders were not involved in their implementation. In the initial attempts to develop telehealth in the late 1990’s the equipment would be delivered into a community without consideration for training, maintenance and updating software. The equipment would often remain locked in a closet in the health unit or school as no one knew how to use it or even how to set up the equipment. There was limited interest from health professionals in urban hospitals, relevant training was not provided to community members for continued operation, and there was no proper training of health personnel in the community to coordinate its use.
Aboriginal community owned networks are run by community people who have an understanding of the values of community members and the issues that can be addressed via the use of technology. They are partially government subsidized. The main problem is that the subsidies are mostly project and short-term related, creating an unstable funding environment. Qiniq was established by a non-profit organization, the Nunavut Broadband Development Corporation, and was based on a private but bandwidth subsidized model. In other words, internet service in Nunavut is not tied to Health Canada or other anchor tenants and all 25 communities have residential connectivity readily available. K-Net is based on a services model, which means connectivity is initially provided to anchor tenants such as the health unit, the administration or band office, and the school. Anchor tenants require larger amounts of bandwidth and must pay a higher monthly amount which secures the business case for the network. This model does not initially provide residential broadband access but supplies communities with a model for the creation of a community owned network. Both Qiniq and K-Net also have Community Access Centres (CAPs) for the public use of computers and connectivity. The potential to develop urban Aboriginal networks would be strong. However, even in urban environments, where basic connectivity infrastructure is well established, the issue of accessibility related to affordability could be addressed using wireless modalities through community initiatives.
Conclusion
The paper addressed two questions: How can the implementation of ICT be impacted by social capital investments? Does the type of ICT development matter in terms of social capital? Although the paper did not discuss in detail “all” forms of ICT2 most of what was examined is applicable to current or future developments. Further, while the focus of the study was on Aboriginal communities, some of its findings may also be applicable to rural and remote non-aboriginal communities.
The paper suggests that how ICT community networks are actually developed and implemented may establish a synergy of social capital as an advantageous pre-requisite for their success and the success itself has the effect of strengthening the community’s social capital. This implies that there is a need for the consideration of power relations among Aboriginal communities and organizations, governments, and private and public corporations. Legislation that favours large private or public ICT corporations over community-based profit or non-profit entities, project-based funding sources that leave community networks at the mercy of government bureaucratic whims, public connectivity infrastructure investments insufficient for rural and remote areas, are all instances of power relations. In fact, these are particular aspects of broader issues of Aboriginal self-governance. Considerations of ICT and Aboriginal social capital that do not consider these power relations as central to the analysis are missing the point that strong social capital is not simply about social relations, but is essentially about agency and self-determination. Consequently social capital investments and the type of ICT network implementation matter.
The above approach to understanding ICT and social capital raised a number of issues that require ongoing debate, research, and policy formulation. Further, the study has created a website that is meant to be both a forum for ongoing examination and debate of these issues, and a clearinghouse of resources for the use of Aboriginal communities, Aboriginal organizations, government, and researchers in relation to ICT and social capital. The web link is the following: www.communityict.ca/.
Notes
1) Although this definition was derived from an analysis that tested broad theoretical ideas against the specific ethnographic realities of First Nations communities, we believe it is arguably relevant beyond the specific communities from which it arose. This current definition includes minor revisions concerning the post publication of papers reporting on the above mentioned study.
2) For instance new generations of user-friendly, handheld wireless devices that provide ‘always-on’ access to email, phone, real-time payments, and other multimedia services; onboard computers in motor vehicles; high-capacity broadband links that support web services and content-rich and interactive services for entertainment, e-commerce, research, and collaborative work environments; mobile phones and their applications (e.g., SMS text messaging) (Australian Government Department of Communications Information Technology and the Arts, 2005).
References
Aldrich, H. (1982). The origins and persistence of social networks. In P.Marsden & N. Lin (Eds.), Social structure and network analysis (pp. 281-293). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Altman, J. C. (2001). Sustainable development options on Aboriginal land: The hybrid economy of the twenty-first century. Canberra: CAEPR, Australia National University: Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research.
Australian Government Department of Communications Information Technology and the Arts. (2005). The role of ICT in building communities and social capital. Australia.
Barlow, J.P., Birkets, S., Kelly, K., & Slouka, M. (1995). What are we doing online? Harper’s 291 (August): 35-46.
Beaton, B., Fiddler, J., & Rowlandson, J. (2004). Living smart in two worlds: Maintaining and protecting First Nation culture for future generations. In Moll, M & Shade, LR. (Eds.), Seeking convergence in policy and practice (pp. 281-295). The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
Bell Canada. (2003). Building the Alberta SuperNet. URL: www.albertasupernet.ca [July 26, 2006].
Bolin, K., Lindgren, B., Lindström, M., & Nystedt, P. (2003). Investments in social capital-implications of social interactions for the production of health. Social Science and Medicine, 56, 2379-2390.
Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant, JD. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1983). The forms of capital. In J.Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood Press.
Campbell, C., Williams, B., & Gilgen, D. (2002). Is social capital a useful conceptual tool for exploring community level influences on HIV infection? An exploratory case study from South Africa. AIDS Care, 14, 41-54.
Casey, T. & Christ, K. (2005). Social capital and economic performance in the American states. Social Science Quarterly, 86, 826-845.
Chen, W., Boase, J. & Wellman, B. (2002). The global villagers: Comparing internet users and uses around the world. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite, (Eds.), Internet in everyday life. Oxford: Blackwell.
Coleman, JS. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Coleman, JS. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.
Dale, A. (2005). Social capital and sustainable community development: Is there a relationship? In A.Dale & J. Onyx (Eds.), A dynamic balance: Social capital and sustainable community development. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Daly, A. (2005). Bridging the digital divide: The role of community online access centres in indigenous communities. URL: http://dspace.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/43177 [August 1, 2006].
Deane, L. & Sullivan, S. (2006). Aboriginal students and the digital divide. Masters thesis. University of Manitoba.
Department of Economics, U of A. (1999). 1999 creation and returns of social capital: Social networks in education and labour markets. Conference proceedings: University of Amsterdam.
Evans, P. (1996). Government action, social capital and development: Reviewing the evidence on synergy. World Development, 24, 1119-1132.
Fevre, R. (2000). Socializing social capital: Identity, the transition to work, and economic development. In S.Baron, J. Field, & T. Schuller (Eds.), Social capital: Critical perspectives (pp. 94-110). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
First People's Cultural Foundation. (2003). FirstVoices. URL: http://www.firstvoices.ca/scripts/WebObjects.exe/FirstVoices.woa/wa/file? [August 1, 2006].
Fiser, A., Clement, A., & Walmark, B. (2005). The K-Net Development Process: A model for First Nations Broadband Community Networks. Presented at the Telecommunications Conference (TPRC) September 23-25, 2005, held at George Mason University School of Law in Arlington, VA.
Gertler, M.S. & Levitte, Y.M. (2005). Local nodes in global networks: The geography of knowledge flows in biotechnology innovation. Industry and Innovation, 12, 487-507.
Gooden, BI. (1998). Social capital, stress and the health of rural African-Americans in central Virginia. Ph.D. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Government of Alberta. (2005). Alberta SuperNet now operational throughout the province: Province marks key completion milestone during the Centennial year. URL: www.gov.ab.ca [July 26, 2006].
Government of Canada (2006) Aboriginal Canada Portal Connectivity: First Nations. http://www.aboriginalcanada.gc.ca/abdt/apps/connectivitysurvey.nsf/vAllCProfile_en/620.html. Accessed: November 12, 2006.
Hunter, B. (2000). Social exclusion, social capital, and Indigenous Australians: Measuring the social costs of unemployment. Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research. Discussion Paper No. 204/2000. Canberra: CAEPR, Australian National University.
Huysman M. & Wulf, V. (2004a). Social capital and information technology. M. Huysman & V. Wulf, editors. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Huysman M., Wulf, V. (2004b). Social capital and information technology: Current debates and research. In M. Huysman & V. Wulf, (Eds.), Social Capital and information technology. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Kawachi, I., Kennedy, BP., Lochner, K., & Prothrow-Stith, D. (1997). Social capital, income inequality, and mortality. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 1491-1498.
Ktunaxa Nation. (2005). Ktunaxa Nation Network. URL: www.ktunaxa.org/network/index.html [October 11, 2006].
Levitte, Y. (2004). Bonding social capital in entrepreneurial developing communities-Survival networks or barriers? Journal of the Community Development Society, 35, 44-64.
Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Loury, GC. (1992). The economics of discrimination: Getting to the core of the problem. Harvard Journal of African American Public Policy, 1, 91-110.
Markoff, J. (2006). For $150, third-world laptop stirs big debate. The New York Times, November 30.
Maxim, P., White, J., & Beavon, D. (2003). Dispersion and polarization of income among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians. In J.White, P. Maxim, & D. Beavon (Eds.), Aboriginal Conditions: Research as a Foundation for Public Policy (pp. 222-247). Vancouver: UBC Press.
Métis Nation of Alberta. (2007). Métis Nation of Alberta. URL: http://www.albertametis.com/MNAHome/MNA2.aspx [October 3, 2007].
Métis Settlements General Council. (2006). Legislation and Policies. URL: http://www.msgc.ca/main.php?page=about_legislation [October 11, 2006].
Midgley, J. & Livermore, M. (1998). Social capital and local economic development: Implications for community social work practice. Journal of Community Practice, 5, 29-40.
Author, A. (2003a). Measuring social capital: A guide for First Nations communities. 1-13. Ottawa, Ontario, Canadian Institute for Health Information.
Author, A. (2003b). Social capital in First Nations communities: Conceptual development and instrument validation. Doctoral dissertation. University of Manitoba: Winnipeg.
Author, A., et al. (2004). Social capital in First Nations communities: Concept and measurement. In J.White, P. Maxim, & D. Beavon (Eds.), Aboriginal Policy Research: Setting the Agenda for Change (pp. 125-139). Ottawa: Thompson Educational Publishing, Inc.
Moody, L., & Cordua-von Specht, I. (2005). Stones: Social capital in Canadian Aboriginal communities. In Dale A. & Onyx, J. (Eds.), A dynamic balance. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Narayan, D. (1999). Bonds and bridges: Social capital and poverty. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Nie, N.H., Hillygus, D.S. & Erbring, L. (2002). Internet use, interpersonal relations, and sociability: A time diary study. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite, (Eds.), Internet in everyday life. Oxford: Blackwell.
Nie, N.H. (2001). Sociability, interpersonal relations, and the internet: Reconciling conflicting findings. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3): 426-37.
Norris, P. (2003). Social capital and ICTs: Widening or reinforcing social networks? Paper presented at the International Forum on Social Capital for Economic Revival, Tokyo, Japan. March.
Portes, A. & Landolt, P (2000). Social capital: Promise and pitfalls of its role in development. Journal of Latin American Studies, 32(2): 529-547.
Putnam, RD. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Touchstone.
Putnam, RD., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, RY. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Qiniq. (2005). Broadband for Nunavut: From vision to reality. URL: www.qiniq.com [October 11, 2006].
Quan-Haase, A & Wellman, B. (2004). How does the internet affect social capital? In M. Huysman & V. Wulf, (Eds.), Social capital and information technology. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Quan-Haase, A & Wellman, B. (2002). Capitalizing on the internet: Social contact, civic engagement, and sense of community. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite, (Eds.), Internet in everyday life. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ramírez, R (2003) Bridging Disciplines: The Natural Resource Management Kaleidoscope for Understanding ICTs. Journal of Development Communication, 14(1): 51-64
Rankin, K.N. (2002). Social capital, microfinance, and the politics of development. Feminist economics, 8(1): 1-24
Rose, R. (2000). How much does social capital add to individual health? A survey study of Russians. Social Science and Medicine, 51, 1421-1435.
Schuller, T., Baron, S., & Field, J. (2000). Social capital: A review and critique. In S.Baron, J. Field, & T. Schuller (Eds.), Social capital: Critical perspectives (pp. 1-38). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schwab, R. & Sutherland, D. (2001). Building Indigenous learning communities. Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research. Discussion Paper No. 225/2001. Canberra: CAEPR, Australian National University
Slonowski, G. (2008). Ktunaxa Nation research partnership launches two community learning centers. URL: http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/media/releases/2008/mr-08-026.html [May 1, 2008].
Smith, D.E. (2001). Community participation agreements: A model for welfare reform from community-based research. Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research. Discussion Paper No. 223/2001. Canberra: CAEPR, Australian National University.
Steinmueller, W.E. (2004). ICTs and social capital. Paper presented at the DRUID Winter Conference, January.
Szreter, S. (2000). Social capital, the economy, and education in historical perspective. In S.Baron, J. Field, & T. Schuller (Eds.), Social capital: Critical perspectives (pp. 56-77). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
United Nations. (2006). Information economy report 2006: The development perspective. New York: U.N. November.
Veenstra, G. (2000). Social capital, SES and health: An individual-level analysis. Social Science and Medicine, 50, 619-629.
Walmark, B., O'Donnell, S., & Beaton, B. (2005). Research on ICT with Aboriginal communities: Report from RICTA 2005. National Research Council of Canada.
Wellman, B.A., Quan-Haase, A., Witte, J., Hampton, K. (2001). Does the internet increase, decrease, or supplement social capital?: Social networks, participation, and community commitment. American Behavioral Scientist, 45 (3): 437-56.
White, J., Maxim, P., & Whitehead, P. (2000). Social capital, social cohesion and population outcomes in Canada's First Nations communities (Rep. No. 00-7). London, Canada: Population Studies Centre, University of Western Ontario.
Woolcock, M. & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for development theory, research, and policy. The World Bank Research Observer, 15, 225-249.
Woolcock, M. (1998a). Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society, 27, 151-208.
Woolcock, M. (1998b). Social theory, development policy, and poverty alleviation: A comparative-historical analysis of group-based banking in developing economies. Doctor of Philosophy Sociology, Brown University.