Modeling Social Inclusion Systems

Fabio Nauras Akhras

Renato Archer Center of Information Technology, Brazil. Email: fabio.akhras@cti.gov.br

INTRODUCTION

Social inclusion is a complex multidisciplinary many-faceted problem that is far from having the same kind of formal basis that other scientific disciplines have achieved. Nevertheless, the formal languages used by disciplines that address social issues with a rather formal approach, like cognitive science and artificial intelligence, can provide a starting point on which to build a formal basis to support the design and analysis of social inclusion systems.

Social inclusion systems involve processes of participation, mediation and interaction in which cognition and learning are situated in broader sociocultural contexts and where the notion of learning community becomes central. Taking this into consideration in the light of a conjunction of factors related to social, economic, technological, cultural, environmental and human conditions that characterize a social system, we are working on the definition of an ontology and models that can be used to improve precision in the design of social inclusion systems, and support their analysis.

Exploring theoretical perspectives from social and psychological sciences, we have defined an initial set of formal entities that can provide a foundation for the previously mentioned purposes. These entities constitute a basic ontology, which is based on five categories of concepts: social situation, social activity, social networking, social process and social affordance. While ontological development in sustainability science has emphasized a problem-solution approach (Kumazawa et. al., 2009), we believe that issues of social inclusion will be more naturally addressed by a situation-transformation approach, which is the focus of our ontology. The ontology is being developed to drive observations and analyses that we are carrying out in several projects of social inclusion support that we are currently developing. In the paper we present examples taken from one of these projects, which involves rural communities learning an Internet language and using it to model their social context and address their opportunities for social inclusion. It includes a careful design of content and activity and consideration of the social context, and so addresses many issues related to the design of social inclusion systems (Akhras, 2009; 2011).

This project is being developed in a region where rural communities have potential for developing an agriculture that can be used for the production of biodiesel, which is viewed as a way of generating income and promoting social inclusion to these communities. A program of training farmers to cultivate plants that can be used to produce oil is being developed in the region as part of a government plan to increase the production of renewable sources of energy by small farms in order to provide social inclusion. This is the social context of the community in which our program of digital and social inclusion is being applied. The program includes the production and use of audiovisuals on subjects of the social context of the learners as a way of providing visual representations of aspects of this social context to be used in the projects that the students will develop for digital inclusion.

The project follows a view of learning that emphasizes the role of the context in learning and points to the importance of learning in authentic situations. Therefore, the project situates learning for digital inclusion in the social context of the learners and is based on authentic activities of project development that address issues of these social contexts. The focus is on allowing the children to address their social context in digital inclusion activities. To do so, the children of the community are involved in the development of small projects of learning portals in which the students learn the HTML language and use that language to create content for learning portals on subjects that are relevant to their community. These projects of learning portals provide the authentic activities that make learning for digital inclusion meaningful for the children.

In a workshop developed with students and teachers of isolated rural communities living on the banks of the Amazon River they produced the portals shown in Fig. 1. The students focused their portals on issues of housing in their village, while the teachers addressed issues of sanitarian infrastructure in the villages.

figure1
Fig. 1. Digital inclusion for social inclusion in isolated rural communities living on the banks of the Amazon River

Part of our work on this project involves eliciting the notions that arise, in the light of our ontology and models, so that they can be stated in precise terms. These notions will support the design of social inclusion systems and provide a framework for the development of units of analysis of social inclusion phenomena.

The next section presents a discussion of some theoretical perspectives from social and psychological sciences, which can provide an initial set of notions that can constitute the basis for the modeling of social inclusion systems. Then, in section three we introduce the ontology that we have developed, and in section four we discuss its application, showing some examples. Overall, the aim is to identify and discuss the issues that arise in supporting social inclusion in individual and community contexts, and explore a way to express these issues in precise terms and models to lay the groundwork for the development of a formal approach to address and support social inclusion systems.

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES FOR MODELING SOCIAL INCLUSION SYSTEMS

A theoretical perspective to support the modeling of social inclusion systems will come from the definition of the units of analysis of social inclusion phenomena. This includes assumptions about the role of the context, the people and the interaction between them in social inclusion systems, and considering issues of time, change and causation, as well as issues of physical and psychological phenomena related to social inclusion.

In formalizing social inclusion phenomena, a central issue to be addressed is the relation between people and their environment in social inclusion processes. In this regard, we follow Gibson´s theory of perception (Gibson, 1979), which treats contexts and psychological processes as aspects of a holistic unit. According to Gibson, the organism and environment uniquely differentiate to fit one another forming a distinctive ecological niche, in such a way that the structure and functioning of the organism implies the environment as well as the particulars of the niche imply the structure and functioning of the organism.

A fundamental notion of Gibson´s theory is the concept of affordances. The affordances of an environment are what it offers to an organism, such as the opportunities for actions or the dangers that exist in an environment for an organism. However, affordances are located neither in the environment nor in the organism. Instead, they are intended to capture units of analysis of perceptual activity that refer to both the environment and the organism in a complementary way.

Therefore, affordances can be interpreted as significances-to-the-organism in the environment, which lead to possibilities for action. An important aspect of affordances is its dynamic character, i.e., affordances that were not present at a certain point may become present after the organism grows, matures, and learns. In general, we can say that after certain interactions between the organism and the environment, affordances that were not present before might become present, as well as some affordances that were present might not be present anymore. In addition, there are positive and negative affordances. While positive affordances may be beneficial to an organism a negative affordance may not (Sanders, 1997).

In our ontology, the definition of the affordances of a particular social context will provide the means to make precise the opportunities for social inclusion in that particular context, as well as those aspects of the social context that can preclude people from achieving social inclusion.

Another aspect of the relation between people and their environment that is relevant for modeling social inclusion phenomena is the activity that people develop in their social contexts. In this regard, we follow a view that also addresses the mutuality of organism and environment in development and is based on the notions of assimilation and accommodation (Piaget & Garcia, 1991; von Glasersfeld, 1995). According to this view, knowing and doing cannot be separated, and the activity and context of an experience become an integral part of the meaning of that experience. It follows that it is from the way people act and organize their activities in situations that they construct or revise their knowledge and views of their social context and of the possibilities to promote changes in this context.

In activity theory, Vygotsky (1978) also addresses the mutual involvement of the individual and the social context in development through the concept of activity, emphasizing holistic units of analysis. According to activity theory, individual thinking is a function of social activity.

In terms of our ontology this raises the need to define modeling entities that address the interaction between social contexts, states of social development (and knowledge) and social activity. Modeling these interactions will make it possible to capture the dynamics of social inclusion processes as activities occur in social contexts and transform social development states. It will also make it possible to capture how activity in social situations allow people to participate in a community of practice, accessing the views and practices of the other members of the community, and making sense of all kinds of information related to that community.

From this view comes the notion of development as apprenticeship, which involves becoming a member of a community of practice as a way of moving from peripheral to full participation in the world (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991), which is the ultimate goal of a social inclusion process.

In our ontology, in order to provide the means to model the dynamics of social inclusion processes, we also need to define modeling entities that address the temporal dimension of the interactions that occur between social contexts, states of social development and knowledge, and social activity.

To take this aspect into consideration in our ontology we follow the transactional perspective proposed by Altman and Rogoff (Altman & Rogoff, 1987). This approach addresses not only the relations between individuals and their environments, but also the temporal qualities of these relations, considered as inherent aspects of phenomena, and embodying the flow and dynamics of the individual's relations to social and physical settings.

Therefore, considering the issues discussed above which emphasize the importance of the contextual and temporal aspects of phenomena, and adopt units of analysis that address the interaction between person and environment, we have outlined a theoretical view that emphasizes five aspects as holistically coexisting in any social inclusion process:

  1. The social context
  2. The social development state
  3. The social activity
  4. The social networking
  5. The social process
  6. The affordances for social inclusion

The aim is to develop a theory that takes into consideration the current social situation of individuals or communities (the social context and the state of development of the social context - the social development state, including the state of knowledge that is relevant for the social inclusion of the community), and provide means to help determine how and which activity (the social activity) and interactions (the social networking) in this situation, and from situation to situation (the social process), may provide opportunities to individuals and communities for social inclusion (the affordances for social inclusion).

In order to develop such a theory we have developed an ontology and an initial set of models based on the ontology, which are briefly described next.

ONTOLOGY AND MODELS

In the development of an ontology and models to provide a formal approach to social inclusion systems some of the research questions to be addressed are:

  1. How do particular aspects of an social situation affect how people (individually or in group) can achieve a social inclusion goal? (the role of the social context)
  2. What particular social development states allow people (individually or in group) to achieve a social inclusion goal from engaging in particular kinds of activities and interactions? (the role of social development states)
  3. What will people do in a given social situation to achieve a social inclusion goal? (the role of the social activity)
  4. What kind of interactions people will develop in a given social situation to achieve a social inclusion goal? (the role of the social networking)
  5. How do the particular ways in which activities and interactions can evolve over time allow people to achieve a social inclusion goal from engaging in particular kinds
  6. of activities and interactions at particular times? (the role of the social process) How do particular kinds of affordances of a social situation allow or preclude people (individually or in group) to achieve a social inclusion goal from engaging in particular kinds of activities and interactions at particular times? (the role of social inclusion affordances)

Addressing and integrating these issues, we have arrived at an ontological perspective in which the elements of social inclusion systems are conceptualized and organized in terms of five main ontological categories:

Therefore, these five ontological categories address the six aspects of social inclusion systems presented before. Social situation refers to the social context and the state of development of the social context. Social activity represents the activity developed in the social context and its connection to the social development state. Social networking represents the social interactions developed in the social context and their connections to social activities. Social process represents the way social activities and social interactions are connected in time, and social affordance refers to the potential of social situations to the development of social activities, interactions and processes in ways that provide opportunities for social inclusion.

MODELING SOCIAL INCLUSION SYSTEMS

Our approach to the modeling of social inclusion systems is based on the five ontological categories introduced above. The first two of these categories are described in more detail in the following sections, presenting some examples of social situation and social activity which show how the models help to elicit issues of situations and transformations that are relevant to address in the analysis of the social inclusion project that is being carried out in rural communities.

Social Situation

In order to address issues of the social context in which social inclusion is to be promoted, we have developed a model to describe social situations. According to this model, social situations are described in terms of their structure and dynamics.

The structure of a social situation is defined in terms of social components, which are the units that constitute social situations, relations between social components, properties of social components, potential states of social components and possible transitions of state between them, and images of social components. The structure of a social situation also includes relations of abstraction and aggregation between social components. In addition, in order to describe more complex structures of social situations, we may also define hierarchies of abstraction and aggregation of social situations. Some examples taken from the project in rural communities, are:

The dynamics of a social situation is defined in terms of social actions and the agents that perform social actions in the social situation. The definition of the dynamics of a social situation includes the identification of the elements of the structure of the social situation that are the preconditions and effects of a social action, the causes and consequences of a social action, or the context of a social action. In addition, there can be relations of abstraction and aggregation between social actions. Some examples are:

As social actions occur in social situations they give rise to a sequence of social actions, which is defined in terms of a course of social action. Courses of social action may involve actions developed by different agents and in different situations. The elements of the social situation structure and dynamics defined for a given social context constitutes a vocabulary of social situation for that social context.

Social Activity

The explicit account of the structure and dynamics of social situations presented above makes it possible to characterize the occurrence of some higher-order aspects of social situations linked to the occurrence of social actions, which can be meaningful in terms of characterizing social inclusion activities. For example, exploring the connections between aspects of structure and dynamics, which have a meaning in terms of social inclusion phenomena, we can describe the changes that are caused in a social situation by social actions.

In this regard, three aspects of a social situation that can be combined to provide an account of social activity that can contribute to the interpretation of social inclusion phenomena, are:

Therefore, components and actions of a social situation are used in the definition of social activities. When social actions occur in a social situation, the combination of the above three aspects may give rise to certain patterns of social activity that can denote, for example, aspects of what has been achieved in terms of changing social development sates through social actions to promote social inclusion. Therefore, in order to support this kind of analysis, patterns of social activity are defined in terms of the concepts that constitute our ontology of social situations (structure and dynamics).

For example, the action 'plantation of oleaginous plants' per se has no meaning in terms of social inclusion. However, if we consider the structure of the social situation, the nature of the activity, and the state of social development (in which particular kinds of seeds are to be planted to generate material for the production of biodiesel as a way of increasing income), we may be able to identify the occurrence of some patterns of social activity that can be described as follows.

An agent of a social situation (the farmer) uses components of the social situation (the seeds and soil available) to generate a new component of the social situation (material for biodiesel) that changes the state of a component of the social situation (increase the farmer´s income) promoting social inclusion. In this example, uses and generate are patterns of social activity, while changes will characterize an issue of the social process.

In more formal terms, we can have the following definitions for these patterns:

pattern of social activity = uses social component (an agent uses a social component through a social action)

pattern of social activity = generates a social component (an agent generates a social component through a social action)

These patterns of social activity are the more basic ones. Other more complex patterns may be modeled in similar ways to represent other aspects of social activities that are relevant to consider in the analysis.

For example, in order to characterize the social process changes we need to consider the way in which the social activity affects the state of social development, producing a transformation in the social situation, given by a transition in the state of the social situation from the state of "agriculture of vegetables" to the state of "agriculture of oleaginous plants". This can be modeled in terms of the following patterns of social activity, which involve the previously modeled patterns:

pattern of social activity = generates transition of state of social situation (a social action generates a transition of state of a social situation)

Therefore, the purpose of the patterns of social activity is to provide units of analysis of social inclusion phenomena centered on the social actions performed in the social context (as shown in the example, from patterns that provide an explicit account of the use and generation of components of the social situation to patterns that provide an explicit account of the generation of transitions in the state of the social situation).

The set of patterns of social activity defined in the context of a given social situation constitutes a vocabulary of social activity for that social situation.

Social Networking

The explicit account of the structure and dynamics of social situations also makes it possible to identify the existence of some aspects of social networking that are relevant to characterize issues that affect social inclusion. The aspects of a social situation that can be combined to provide an account of social networking, are:

The combination of these aspects of a social situation may give rise to certain patterns of social networking that can denote, for example, aspects of the connections between elements of a social situation, that can facilitate, or preclude, social inclusion. To support this kind of analysis, patterns of social networking are defined in terms of the concepts that constitute the ontological categories of social situation and social activity.

For example, in order that the material for biodiesel generated in the farm can be sold there must be a connection between the farmer's community and the biodiesel producers.

This involves a networking between entities of two social situations: the community of agricultural families and the biodiesel production plant, which includes the following elements:

Therefore, we can say that an agent (the biodiesel producer) of a social situation (biodiesel production plant) perform a social action (buy material for biodiesel) through which it exchanges with an agent (the farmer) of another social situation (the community of agricultural families) a component of its social situation (money value of material for biodiesel) by a component of the other social situation (material for biodiesel).

This may characterize a pattern of social networking that can be defined in the following way:

pattern of social networking=exchange of a social component (an agent of a social situation exchanges a social component with an agent of another social situation through a social action)

Therefore, patterns of social networking provide units of analysis of social inclusion phenomena that focus on the social networking. The above example address the social networking that allows the exchange of components between two different social situations. Making the social networking explicit in that way provide a better account of the kinds of networking that are needed in order that social inclusion can be promoted, and may help to find ways in which the creation of this networking can be stimulated.

As before, the set of patterns of social networking defined in the context of a given social situation constitutes a vocabulary of social networking for that situation.

Social Process

The definition of patterns of social activity and patterns of social networking will allow the analysis of sequences of social actions with regard to the ways in which these patterns are connected in time to denote particular kinds of social processes.

Therefore, to provide this higher-level of analysis, addressing the relations that develop over time between aspects of social activity and of social networking, which are meaningful in terms of interpreting social inclusion processes, our ontological account of social processes involves the definition of properties of course of social action. A property of a course of social action is defined from the meaningful ways in which patterns of social activity and of social networking, developed in different times, relate to each other in the course of social action.

In the previous example, in which the social action "plantation of oleaginous plants" produced the patterns of social activity uses "seeds of oleaginous plants" and generates "material for biodiesel", these patterns were associated to a social process that produced a change in the state of a social component (increase the farmer´s income). This change in the state of a social component characterizes a social process that can be described in terms of a property of course of social action, as follows:

Property: change (change of social component in a course of social action)

Time 1 of the course of social action:

Time 2 of the course of social action:

Again, this is one of the more basic properties a course of social action can exhibit - the change in the state of a social component. Other more complex properties can be defined to address several other aspects of social inclusion processes.

Of the many properties that may be defined, some may be considered more significant than others, depending on the social inclusion theories or the experimental evidence that they address. Our purpose is not to argue in favor of any specific set of properties but to provide a framework to make precise the definition and use of these properties to create systems to promote social inclusion.

So, for example, if a social inclusion system is to be created following the approach of development as freedom (Sen, 1999), then the properties of course of social interaction to be defined should reflect concepts of this approach. So, for example, the changes that will promote social inclusion should be defined in terms of social opportunities, market arrangements or development of individual capabilities, which is the way they are addressed in the approach of development as freedom (Sen, 1999).

On the other hand, if the particular situation of social exclusion requires a different approach, based on a different theory, then the properties of course of social action that will be defined to support the social inclusion system may be different. In order to define these properties, the literature on the social inclusion theory should be searched, to identify properties which productive social inclusion processes should have, re-interpreting the natural language descriptions of these processes in terms of the definition of desirable properties of courses of social action, and then using such definitions to support the design and analysis of the social inclusion system.

Therefore, the definition of the social inclusion system will depend on this analysis, and will come from the definition of the set of desirable properties, which will be those that are considered to be relevant to promote social inclusion, according to the particular social inclusion theories or experimental evidences being considered as a basis for the creation of the social inclusion system.

In summary, in the first level (social situation) we have an account of social actions (like plantation of oleaginous plants) and social components (like farmer's income). In the second level (social activity) we have a more meaningful account given by patterns of social activity (like generate material for biodiesel) and the patterns of social networking (like exchange material for biodiesel by its money value). In the third level (social process) we have a still more meaningful account of social inclusion phenomena given by properties of course of social action (like change the farmer´s income). Building on these accounts, the next level will provide an analysis of the affordances of social situations for promoting social inclusion.

Social Affordance

Following Gibson (1979), we can say that the potential of a social situation to promote social inclusion at a certain time is determined by the affordances of that social situation with respect to certain kinds of social interactions.

Among the more basic kinds of affordances are the social actions whose occurrence a social situation can afford to an agent. These affordances denote opportunities in a social situation for particular kinds of social actions. For example, if there is an archive in a social situation with a certain kind of information, and if it is possible for an agent to access that archive (perhaps using the internet), then we can say that the particular social situation affords to an agent accessing that information. These basic kinds of affordances may depend on the particular state of development of the social situation (like the availability of internet access) and may change as the state of social development changes.

In addition to these basic kinds of affordances, other higher-order kinds of affordances may be defined to denote the affordances of social situations with regard to the possible occurrence of patterns of social activity, patterns of social networking and properties of course of social action. These affordances will provide information about the potential patterns of social activity or of social networking that can occur in a social situation, and, as a consequence, about the potential courses of social action exhibiting certain properties that can be developed in the social situation. This will help to define the opportunities in a social situation for social activities, social networking and social processes that can facilitate or preclude social inclusion. A positive affordance may facilitate social inclusion while a negative affordance may not.

Therefore, in order to provide an ontology that allows to conceptualize the positive or negative opportunities for social inclusion in social situations, we have identified three kinds of social affordances. According to this conceptualization, a social situation may afford the occurrence of particular kinds of social activity (patterns of social activity), the existence of particular kinds of social networking (patterns of social networking), and the development of particular kinds of social processes (courses of social action with particular properties).

In the example given in the previous section, the plantation of oleaginous plants promoted a change in the state of the farmer's income, increasing the possibilities of social inclusion in the community. However, in order to produce oleaginous plants the farmer needs to be trained in new agricultural techniques. Therefore, we can say that a social situation in which the farmer has access to a training program in these techniques affords the development of a social process that will promote an increasing in the farmer's income. This can be described in terms of the following affordance of social situation:

If in time 1 of the course of social action:

And in time 2 of the course of social action:

Then, in time 3 of the course of social action, the social situation affords:

At this point, the relations between the ontological categories may be described in terms of the following views that result from the analysis in each category. Social situations provide a view of the social actions that occur in the situation and of the social components that affect or are affected by these social actions. To obtain a more meaningful interpretation of what happens in a social situation, the social activity ontology provides a view of the patterns of social activity that occur in a social situation, and the social networking ontology provides a view of the patterns of social networking that exist in a social situation. The social process ontology adds the time dimension to social actions providing an interpretation of the social process that occur in a social situation in terms of the properties that develop in courses of social actions.

In addition, given the sets of social actions, patterns of social activity, patterns of social networking and properties of courses of social action, developed in a social situation, it is possible to find out what has been achieved in terms of social inclusion and to provide opportunities for further achievements. This is the role of the ontology of social affordances that builds on the other four ontologies to provide an account of the opportunities for the development of social actions, patterns of social activity, patterns of social networking and properties of courses of social action, that can advance further the social inclusion process.

CONCLUSION

In this paper we have presented an approach to support the modeling of social inclusion systems. The ontology and models presented are intended to provide a precise basis to support the design and analysis of systems created to promote social inclusion. The approach addresses five main ontological categories: social situation, social activity, social networking, social process and social affordance. The main characteristic of this approach is its focus on the integration of the various aspects involved in creating and analyzing systems to promote social inclusion, addressing at the same time the social situation, the social activities, the social interactions, and the social processes that are present in any social inclusion context.

The concern with the context of social inclusion pointed to the need of addressing in precise terms the notion of social situation, including the consideration of its structure and dynamics, leading to work on the development of a social situation theory in a way that is similar to work on situation theory (Barwise & Perry, 1983). This is the basis for the development of theories of social activity, social networking, social process and social affordance that complete the model. Further work includes the advance of these developments and their application to support the analysis and creation of social inclusion systems. Our long-term goal is to provide a precise basis on which to analyze, understand, and improve systems to promote social inclusion.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The work reported in this paper is being sponsored by the National Council of Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) of Brazil, and by the Sao Paulo State Research Support Foundation (FAPESP).

REFERENCES

Akhras, F. N. (2009). A learning to learn approach to digital inclusion in social contexts. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International IDIA Development Informatics Conference (IDIA 2009), South Africa, p. 40-49.
Akhras, F. N. (2011). Situating learning for digital inclusion in the social contexts of communities. Journal of Community Informatics, 7(1&2), pp. 1-11.
Altman, I. & Rogoff, B. (1987). World views in psychology: trait, interactional, organismic, and transactional perspectives. In: Stokols, D. and Altman, I. (eds.), Handbook of Environmental Psychology, John Wiley, pp. 7-40.
Barwise, J. & Perry, J. (1983). Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Kumazawa, T., Saito, O., Kozaki, K., Matsui, T. & Mizoguchi, R. (2009). Toward knowledge structuring of sustainability science based on ontology engineering. Sustainability Science, 4, pp. 99-116.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Piaget, J. & Garcia, R. (1991). Toward a Logic of Meanings. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sanders, J. T. (1997). An ontology of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 9(1), pp. 97-112.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical Constructivism: a way of knowing and learning. London: The Falmer Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Harvard University Press.