VLE group 9 was tasked with locating and obtaining free land in Second Life to build an in-world presence for our nonprofit partner. To do so, we became a part of the thriving nonprofit community in Second Life, which is centralized in an in-world location called Nonprofit Commons. The NPC team provided us with a vacant lot, free of charge, on which to build an “office space” for our nonprofit.

Our first step was to partner with a nonprofit. The initial obstacle we encountered was determining how Second Life could be a feasible and useful platform to further the nonprofit’s objectives. Both NPs focused on children’s issues, and the Hispanic AIDS Forum expressed concern that their children did not have access to SL technologies. Globalhood expressed interest in exploring a SL presence, however, so we decided to partner with them. We decided to gear our SL space towards adults in the SL community, with the goal being two-fold: 1.) raising awareness and 2.) raising money. The NP community in Second Life is eager to expand and grow and support (with time and advice as well as money) new causes which have expressed interest in SL.

The next step of the process was to prepare a proposal for Globalhood that explains what SL can offer. Globalhood had previously not been exposed to Second Life so they will need continued guidance on the ins and outs of the unique platform. But they are eager to partner with us and jump right in.

Next, we formally applied for space in SL with a New Tenant Application. After we were approved, began to formulate a plan for filling the space. We decorated the office space with furniture, media and a donation box.

We are pleased to report that we have already raised $500 for our nonprofit, thanks to a very generous donation from Mercedes Ochs. Waxalka befriended Mercedes through the Nonprofit Commons, and she has been instrumental in helping us secure free furniture for our space. Many thanks, Mercedes!

As Srinivasan observes in “Indigenous, ethnic and cultural articulations of new media,” much has been written about the ‘digital divide.’ The discussion has focused on the lack of access in undeserved communities that make less use of technology and new media. He writes that the discussion has been framed around the idea of reinforcing “structures of power.” But Srinivasan makes a more interesting proposition for the use of new media by undeserved populations: that these “communities can use the internet to exchange information, preserve history, generate diasporic identities and share resources that can enable collective political and social causes to be realized.” Moreover, his proposition considers the inherent features of new media technology for empowerment: 1. servers and networks, and 2. databases.

Some social scientists are opposed to the ‘useful’ potential of new media, and argue instead that the ‘virtualization and globalization’ is detrimental to communities. They argue that creating a community that relies on ‘real time’ versus ‘real space or real life’ creates a disconnect that no longer relies on the geographical and physicality of traditional societies. Taking into account the work of the Frankfurt School, Srinivasan points out that the prevailing discussion of new media has focused on a “passive understanding…as a set of technologies that are imposed on the public, rather than as a tool that can be used to achieve locally and culturally specific visions.” He observes that the appropriation and use of the technology must go beyond simply making use of it and that it should serve “specific community needs” and that only then the new media can become a “catalyst for new interpretations and alternative paradigms.”

His observation is relevant because he brings attention to the fact that technologies and new media can not only be consumed in terms of already establish norms but rather be a tool to redefine conceptions about communication, archiving, oral history or preservation of identity. Furthermore, it is important that media (new or old) can articulate a message according to the needs and cultural values of the communities that use them.

Using the example of Faye Ginsburg’s work with the Inuit cultures, Srinivasan writes that Ginsburg work shows “the importance of re-purposing the Frankfurt School critique of culture industries within a model of appropriation that places those traditionally disadvantaged into the position of creator and broadcaster.”

I find the observation useful because when users of media become creators (such as in Second Life) the control over content becomes a tool of empowerment for anyone experiencing the act of creating, sharing and consuming material in a horizontal model.

Citing more examples (Brazilian population among others), he writes “technologies are appropriated by indigenous groups to achieve community-focused cultural, political, educational and social objectives” and that the use of technology can then be “in a larger play with national and international notions that define the concept of ‘indigenous’.”

The same could be applied to the work with other communities such as undeserved urban communities (Globalhood, Global Potential), gay latino youth or transgender communities (HAF). The use of media and the appropriation of the media could serve as a way to disseminate / broadcast / construct concepts that redefine ideas that people might have about these populations and could then help to remove harmful ideas of stigma and prejudice.

It’s also instructive to use his work with the Native American population around San Diego to understand how new media can be utilized in ways that incorporate the cultural makeup of a community, and how the use of media can help overcome and/or help challenges faced by certain aspects such as fragmentation (physical in this case) and how the flow of information afforded by the internet helps to build a sense of community and to link people that were otherwise be disconnected. Additionally, he points to the advantage that the communities can gain in order to create a ‘bank’ of oral history or to create a permanent record of cultural artifacts.

He also mentions the importance of creating relationships with the leaders of the community, or of engaging other “community infrastructures” to build the technical tools that will later reinforce those already physical – geographical ‘nodes’ of the population.

Until people are not ready to consider the importance of new media as a given, that approach is perhaps the one that will give better results: building personal encounters (face to face) that in turn will help to the creation of a more virtual and networked interaction.

I say that because it has been my experience with this project. Building relationships with the members of Globalhood has been essential to the implementation of our plan.

For our third group meeting, we met up in Second Life and sat around a camp fire to discuss and draft our project plan. We used the project plan format suggestions in the VLE Wiki as a guideline.

Notes from group meeting on the Project Plan Format:

*a) what is the “problem” / issue your project is addressing? Provide some background about the target population (socioeconomic conditions, language, ethnicity, race, gender, sexuality, educational level, intergenerational relations, regional-neighborhood conditions, cultural norms, etc) and the problem(s) attitudes, beliefs and/or behaviors your project will attempt to change.*

-(objective) Our group project will be to collaborate with Latino Youth in Action in supplementing classroom learning modules with online and social media tools, that they can use both in-class and outside of class as well as provide suggestions for how to integrate classroom learning modules into a fully online curriculum in the future

-(target population) to be culled from LYIA/HAF literature, but it might be good to mention specifically the peer educators in the program who will be responsible for teaching others the tech skills, building on the plans/suggestions we provide for them (their own ideas on how to implement online/social media), as well as implementing them into the curriculum

*b) what are the barriers to attitude, belief and/or behavior change?*

+lack of resources (web cams) and access to computers/internet/equipment/audio recording equipment, etc. (very important, may want to ask Jason specifically what he suggests in terms of this challenge?)

+working from the older curriculum (not too important, but should be mentioned)

+designing effective and engaging instruction manuals for learning how to use social media tools (not to overwhelm them, to make learning these tech skills “fun” and engaging, etc. )

+technical skill level of youths

+making online learning modules and social media engaging for youths (how to make them truly interested and/or committed to using these tools?)

+creating/making online tools foster the type of ‘intimacy’ that in-classroom activities provide

*c) what is your intervention “selling” or “teaching”? that is, what alternatives is it promoting? what rewards does it promise?*

- (selling/teaching) the curriculum already provided by LYIA, as well as computer/equipments skills and online/social media tools and skills

-(rewards) wider reach in terms of collaboration, distribution, access to learning materials etc.

*d) how can you measure its effectiveness (what has been learned/what has been effected?)*

Our group will solicit feedback from LYIA youth before finalizing all learning module materials, as well as a “feedback session” after the in-class training session

*e) /how/ will the particular platform you have chosen (i.e, virtual world, Facebook, etc.) enhance the intervention/the learner’s experience? what qualities of social media you are using are particularly useful for attaining your goal of connecting with your target population?*

-Allows people to participate in the community without necessarily having to reveal their identities if they are afraid of that – they can test the waters with an avatar – helps to overcome a barrier of entry such as stigma, fear of revealing one’s orientation, etc.

-Also, gives tools for self – expression with wider distribution, not dependent on physical proximity or time-dependent

Group 2 Project Format and Elements Outline:

1. Instruction Manual (print and web version)

2. Individual curriculum session plans (divided between the 3 of us) where we provide:

a) ways/suggestions to implement online and social media tools in classroom learning modules (how they can use the tools in class) – these should be very specific to the elements of each particular session/lesson

b) ways/suggestions to supplement modules outside of class i.e. for “absentees” (a way for those who miss meetings to catch up, for those who need further review outside of class, and also, a way for them to engage in other resources outside of class) using online and social media tools

c) ways/suggestions to integrate the sessions into a fully online curriculum/version in the future

3. In-person training session, using the instruction manual for teaching the senior peers tech skills (which they can then teach to other peers)

4. Collaborate with other groups working with HAF

5. Elicit feedback from Jason/LYIA members on the Design, Suggestions, and Implementation of the session/lesson plans and instruction manual, before finalizing them

6. Upload materials to a place online somewhere, either on our blog or on the website that the other HAF group is working on (so that there is both an online and print version of our curriculum modules)