The map emerged from perceiving coworking spaces are next-generation telecentres; seeing connections between telecentres, coworking spaces, hackerspaces, and libraries; and being somewhat exasperated at how libraries are often overlooked as key actors in community development — despite the fact that they’ve always been places where people convene, learn, and create. (More on this note: Wayan Vota, Chris Coward, Meaghan O’Connor, Patrick Tanguay, and Christine… I’m sure you could send us more examples!).

The map is supposed to articulate how public-access venues (libraries, telecentres, cybercafes) and co-location/working/production spaces are connected. We were trying to go beyond access to technology while acknowledging its role and ubiquitousness, and to highlight the importance of access to people in innovation and development.

We’re hoping that this framework can help us think about both the theoretical and practical aspects of innovation grounds (design, support, research, policy, etc.).

Development agencies and practitioners should take a closer look at innovation grounds. Figure out how you can make them work for you — and how you can build on existing efforts. Similarly, national and local governments should seek out and leverage innovation grounds: libraries, coworking spaces, hackerspaces, community wireless groups. They’re out there. Start connecting. (And remember there are resources out there. One example is the US IMPACT Study — based on their research they prepared a wonderful toolkit to help libraries document successes and build understanding and support.)

Tell us what you think. Does this framework spark anything for you?

— Christine Prefontaine & Silvia Caicedo

(Shout outs: The term innovation grounds was inspired by Karen Fisher’s concept of “information grounds“. The term “commonspace” comes from Mark Surman. And writing this included a mental walkthrough of the facilities and approach of Toronto’s Centre for Social Innovation, Montreal’s Station C and Foulab, various libraries we love, and all of the wonderful people and places that we came into contact with while working at IDRC on telecentre.org.)

Ran across this in my online travels tonight. It was written by Sister Corita Kent. My favorites are number 6 and number 8.

I found it because Bruno told me a story about clay pots this week that stuck with me. And so I went googling to find more about it. Both the rules and the story are in the same category: feel-good cheezy stuff you sorta know and good to remember and really hard to apply in the everyday.

Nothing is a mistake. When I was doing my masters I wrote an essay on the importance of failure. And yet I fear it so much. Most of us do. In conversations with Floro and Theresa it’s come up as well. Celebrate failure. I read somewhere that Google encourages employees to fail. And there’s lots of writing connecting failure with innovation. But this is a real challenge in a world of impact assessments, results-based monitoring, and performance-based contracts. Investors and donors like charts with with lines climbing steadily north east. Too much at stake. Too much to lose. Better to stick with the success story. (Recently I watched a video of a Žižek lecture where he talks about the lies we collectively decide to believe. Likely more out of momentum than malice.) And I understand it. I wouldn’t want  you to waste my investment. Learning and growing is uncomfortable territory.

Take, for example, International Development, a concept I find increasingly problematic. I have to confess: Sen, Easterly, and Stiglitz remain on my bookshelf, unread. But here’s a suggestion: Less professional consultants flying about (I have done my fair share of this) and more convenings of community organizers. People rooted in and focused on their own places getting together once and a while to compare notes. That’s a model that I’d like to explore. I’m trying to move in that direction. It’s a better fit for me.

Ooops, all I intended to do here is share Sister Corita’s rules. Seems I got rambling. Sorry about that. My mistake.