The Capability Approach Community Informatics

REFERENCES

• Abend, G. 2008. The meaning of ‘theory’. Sociological Theory 26(2): 173–99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alexander, J.C. 1987. The centrality of the classics. In Social theory today, ed. A. Giddens and J.H. Turner, 11–57. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Alkire, S. 2005. Why the capability approach? Journal of Human Development 6(1): 115–33.
   Google Scholar
• Barley, S.R. 1990. The alignment of technology and structure through roles and networks. (Technology, Organizations, and Innovation). Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1): 61–04.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bishop, R. 2005. Freeing ourselves from neo-colonial domination in research: A Kaupapa Mäori approach to creating knowledge. In The SAGE handbook of qualitative research, ed. N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln, 109–38. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Bradley, G. 2006. Social and community informatics: Humans on the net. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, H.-T. 1990. Theory-driven evaluations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Civil Society Organisations. 2003. Civil society statement at the end of the preparatory process for the World Summit on the Information Society. Geneva, Switzerland: Civil Society Organizations.
   Google Scholar
• Cowlishaw, G. 2004. Australian Aborigines: Sociocultural aspects. In International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, ed. N.J. Smelser and P. Baltes, 956–60. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
   Google Scholar
• Feenberg, A., and N. Friesen (Eds.). 2012. (Re)inventing the internet. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: SensePublishers.
   Google Scholar
• Giddens, A. 1976. New rules of sociological method: A positive critique of interpretative sociologies. London, UK: Hutchinson.
   Google Scholar
• Gigler, B.-S. 2011. Informational capabilities. The missing link for the impact of ICT on development e-transform knowledge platform (Working paper). . Washington, DC: The World Bank.
   Google Scholar
• Greene, J.C. 2006. Towards a methodology of mixed methods social inquiry. Research in the Schools 13(1): 93–98.
   Google Scholar
• Gregor, S. 2006. The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly 30(3): 611–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grunfeld, S.Hak, and T. Pin. 2011. Understanding benefits realisation of iREACH from a capability approach perspective. Ethics and Information Technology 13(2): 151–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guba, E.G., and Y.S. Lincoln. 1981. Effective evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Gurstein, M. 2007. What is community informatics (and why does it matter)? Milan, Italy: Polimetrica.
   Google Scholar
• Gurstein, M. 2012. Toward a conceptual framework for community informatics. In Connecting Canadians: Investigations in community informatics, ed. M.G. Andrew Clement, Graham Longford, Marita Moll, and Leslie Regan Shade, 35–61. Edmonton, Canada: Athabasca University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harvey, D. 2000. Possible urban worlds. The Fourth Megacities Lecture. Amersfoort, The Netherlands: Twynstra Gudde Management Consultants.
   Google Scholar
• Hirschheim, R., and H.K. Klein. 1989. Four paradigms of information systems development. Communications of the ACM 32(10): 1199–216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirschheim, R., H.K. Klein, and K. Lyytinen. 1996. Exploring the intellectual structures of information systems development: A social action theoretic analysis. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies 6(1–2): 1–64.
   Google Scholar
• Johnstone, J. 2007. Technology as empowerment: A capability approach to computer ethics. Ethics and Information Technology 9(1): 73–87.
   Google Scholar
• Kleine, D. 2010. ICT4WHAT?—Using the choice framework to operationalise the capability approach to development. Journal of International Development 22(5): 674–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kubisch, A.C. 1997. Voices from the field: Learning from the early work of comprehensive community initiatives. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Merton, R.K. 1968. Social theory and social structure. New York, NY: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mills, C.W. 1959. The sociological imagination. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mjøset, L. 2001. Theory: Conceptions in the social sciences. In International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, 15641–47. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
   Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, M. 2003. Beyond the human contract: Towards global justice. . The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Australian National University, Canberra, November 12 and 13, 2002, and Clare Hall, University of Cambridge, March 5 and 6, 2003. http://tannerlectures.utah.edu/lectures/documents/volume24/nussbaum_2003.pdf (accessed March 1, 2010).
   Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, M.C. 2000. Women and human development—The capabilities approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nyden, P., L. Hossfeld, and G. Nyden. 2011. Public sociology: Research, action, and change. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Oosterlaken, I. 2008. Product innovation for human development.A capability approach to designing for the bottom of the pyramid (Working paper of the 3TU Centre for Ethics and Technology). . Delft, The Netherlands: Delft University of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Oosterlaken, I. 2009. Design for development. Design Issues 25(4): 91–102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orlikowski, W.J. 1992. The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations. Organization Science 3(3): 398–427.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orlikowski, W.J. 2000. Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science 11(4): 404–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parsons, T. 1951. The social system. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Robeyns, I. 2005. The Capability Approach: A theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 6(1): 93–117.
   Google Scholar
• Robeyns, I. 2006. The capability approach in practice. Journal of Political Philosophy 14(3): 351–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothman, J. 1972. Three models of community organization practice. In Strategies of community organization, ed. F.M. Cox, 20–36. Itasca, IL: FE Peacock.
   Google Scholar
• Salvador, T., and J. Sherry. 2004. Local learnings: An essay on designing to facilitate effective use of ICTs. Journal of Community Informatics 1(1): 76–83.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A.K. 2001. Development as freedom. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A.K. 2009. The idea of justice. London, UK: Allen Lane.
   Google Scholar
• Shadish, W.R., T.D. Cook, and L.C. Leviton. 1991. Foundations of program evaluation: theories of practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Skinner, Q. 1985. The Return of grand theory in the human sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stillman, L., and B. Craig. 2006. Incorporating indigenous world views in community informatics. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4277: 237–46.
   Google Scholar
• Stillman, L., M. Herselman, M. Marais, M. Pitse Boshomane, P. Plantinga, and S. Walton. 2012. Digital doorway: Social-technical innovation for high-needs communities. Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries 50(2): 1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Stillman, L., and H. Linger. 2009. Community informatics and information systems: How can they be better connected? The Information Society 25(4): 1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stillman, L., and R. Stoecker. 2008. Community informatics. in Handbook of research on public information technology, ed. G.D. Garson and M. Khosrow-Pour, 50–60. Hershey, PA: Idea Group
   Google Scholar
• Stoecker, R. 2005. Research methods for community change: A project-based approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Toboso, M. 2011. Rethinking disability in Amartya Sen's approach: ICT and equality of opportunity. Ethics and Information Technology 13(2): 107–118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsatsou, P. 2011. Digital divides in Europe. Culture, politics and the Western–Southern divide. Oxford, UK: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Vaughan, D. 2011. The importance of capabilities in the sustainability of information and communications technology programs: The case of remote Indigenous Australian communities. Ethics and Information Technology 13(2): 131–50.
   Google Scholar
• Zheng, Y. 2007. A structurational conceptualization of information literacy: Reflections on research in rural South Africa. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth European Conference on Information Systems, ed. H. Österle, J. Schelp, and R. Winter, 2221–32. St. Gallen, Switzerland: University of St. Gallen.
   Google Scholar
• Zheng, Y. 2009. Different spaces for e-development: What can we learn from the capability approach? Information Technology for Development 15(2): 66–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zheng, Y., and R. Heeks. 2008. Conceptualizing information culture in developing countries. . (Development Informatics Working Paper 2008/34). Manchester, UK: Development Informatics Group, Institute for Development Policy and Mangement, University of Manchester.
   Google Scholar
• Zheng, Y., and G. Walsham. 2008. Inequality of what? Social exclusion in the e-society as capability deprivation. Information Technology & People 21(3): 222–43.
   Google Scholar