Using digital storytelling as a change agent for women’s participation in the Turkish public sphere

This thesis builds on the scholarship and practical know-how that have emerged from digital storytelling projects around the world with diverse groups of participants in a range of institutions. I have used the results of these projects to explore the opportunities Digital Storytelling workshop practice may hold for women’s participation in the public sphere in Turkey. Through theoretical discussion and practical experimentation, I examine the potential of Digital Storytelling workshop practice as a means to promote agency and self-expression in a feminist activist organisation, focusing in particular on whether Digital Storytelling can be used as a change agent – as a tool for challenging the idea of public sphere in ways that make it more inclusive of women’s participation. The thesis engages with feminist scholarship’s critiques of the public/private dichotomy, as well as the concept of gender, to seek connections with narrative identity in the light of the analysis of the Digital Storytelling workshops and the digital stories that were created in a feminist context. The study on which this thesis is based saw the introduction of Digital Storytelling to Turkey for the first time through workshops in Istanbul and Antakya, conducted in partnership with the feminist activist organisation Amargi Women’s Academy. Applying the principles of feminist post-structuralist discourse analysis as used by Judith Baxter (2003), I examine two sets of data collected in this project. First, I analyse the interactions during the Digital Storytelling workshops, where women from Amargi created their digital stories in a collaborative setting. This is done through participatory observation notes and in-depth interviews with the workshop participants and facilitators. Second, I seek to uncover the strategies that these women used to ‘speak back to power’ in their digital stories, reading these as texts. I conclude that women from the Amargi network used the workshops to create digital content in order to communicate their concerns about issues that can be classified as gender-specific matters. During this process, they also cooperated, established new connections, and at the end of the process even defined new ways of using, circulating and repurposing their digital stories for feminist activism in Turkey. My research thereby contributes equally to feminist discourse analysis, the study of new-media usage and uptake among non-professionals, and the study of media–public sphere interactions in a particular national setting: Turkey. My conclusion indicates that the process of production is as important as the product itself, and from that I am able to draw out some strategies for developing digitally equipped women’s activism in Turkey.

Knowledge management

This paper describes the background and methodology developed and employed in undertaking research developing a Knowledge Management Strategy for a key construction focused government agency. This paper reviews this methodology and examines a likely Knowledge Management Strategy.

Knowledge-Intensive Business Processes: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Knowledge-intensive Business Processes [CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Volume 861]

Nowadays, Workflow Management Systems (WfMSs) and, more generally, Process Management Systems (PMPs) are process-aware Information Systems (PAISs), are widely used to support many human organizational activities, ranging from well-understood, relatively stable and structures processes (supply chain management, postal delivery tracking, etc.) to processes that are more complicated, less structured and may exhibit a high degree of variation (health-care, emergency management, etc.). Every aspect of a business process involves a certain amount of knowledge which may be complex depending on the domain of interest. The adequate representation of this knowledge is determined by the modeling language used. Some processes behave in a way that is well understood, predictable and repeatable: the tasks are clearly delineated and the control flow is straightforward. Recent discussions, however, illustrate the increasing demand for solutions for knowledge-intensive processes, where these characteristics are less applicable. The actors involved in the conduct of a knowledge-intensive process have to deal with a high degree of uncertainty. Tasks may be hard to perform and the order in which they need to be performed may be highly variable. Modeling knowledge-intensive processes can be complex as it may be hard to capture at design-time what knowledge is available at run-time. In realistic environments, for example, actors lack important knowledge at execution time or this knowledge can become obsolete as the process progresses. Even if each actor (at some point) has perfect knowledge of the world, it may not be certain of its beliefs at later points in time, since tasks by other actors may change the world without those changes being perceived. Typically, a knowledge-intensive process cannot be adequately modeled by classical, state of the art process/workflow modeling approaches. In some respect there is a lack of maturity when it comes to capturing the semantic aspects involved, both in terms of reasoning about them. The main focus of the 1st International Workshop on Knowledge-intensive Business processes (KiBP 2012) was investigating how techniques from different fields, such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), Knowledge Representation (KR), Business Process Management (BPM), Service Oriented Computing (SOC), etc., can be combined with the aim of improving the modeling and the enactment phases of a knowledge-intensive process. The 1st International Workshop on Knowledge-intensive Business process (KiBP 2012) was held as part of the program of the 2012 Knowledge Representation & Reasoning International Conference (KR 2012) in Rome, Italy, in June 2012. The workshop was hosted by the Dipartimento di Ingegneria Informatica, Automatica e Gestionale Antonio Ruberti of Sapienza Universita di Roma, with financial support of the University, through grant 2010-C26A107CN9 TESTMED, and the EU Commission through the projects FP7-25888 Greener Buildings and FP7-257899 Smart Vortex. This volume contains the 5 papers accepted and presented at the workshop. Each paper was reviewed by three members of the internationally renowned Program Committee. In addition, a further paper was invted for inclusion in the workshop proceedings and for presentation at the workshop. There were two keynote talks, one by Marlon Dumas (Institute of Computer Science, University of Tartu, Estonia) on "Integrated Data and Process Management: Finally?" and the other by Yves Lesperance (Department of Computer Science and Engineering, York University, Canada) on "A Logic-Based Approach to Business Processes Customization" completed the scientific program. We would like to thank all the Program Committee members for the valuable work in selecting the papers, Andrea Marrella for his valuable work as publication and publicity chair of the workshop, and Carola Aiello and the consulting agency Consulta Umbria for the organization of this successful event.

Australian Learning and Teaching Council, Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Statement for Architecture

The development of the Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Statement for Architecture (the Statement) centred on requirements for the Master of Architecture and proceeded alongside similar developments in the building and construction discipline under the guidance and support of the Australian Deans of Built Environment and Design (ADBED). Through their representation of Australian architecture programs, ADBED have provided high-level leadership for the Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Project in Architecture (LTAS Architecture). The threshold learning outcomes (TLOs), the description of the nature and extent of the discipline, and accompanying notes were developed through wide consultation with the discipline and profession nationally. They have been considered and debated by ADBED on a number of occasions and have, in their fi nal form, been strongly endorsed by the Deans. ADBED formed the core of the Architecture Reference Group (chaired by an ADBED member) that drew together representatives of every peak organisation for the profession and discipline in Australia. The views of the architectural education community and profession have been provided both through individual submissions and the voices of a number of peak bodies. Over two hundred individuals from the practising profession, the academic workforce and the student cohort have worked together to build consensus about the capabilities expected of a graduate of an Australian Master of Architecture degree. It was critical from the outset that the Statement should embrace the wisdom of the greater ‘tribe’, should ensure that graduates of the Australian Master of Architecture were eligible for professional registration and, at the same time, should allow for scope and diversity in the shape of Australian architectural education. A consultation strategy adopted by the Discipline Scholar involved meetings and workshops in Perth, Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra and Brisbane. Stakeholders from all jurisdictions and most universities participated in the early phases of consultation through a series of workshops that concluded late in October 2010. The Draft Architecture Standards Statement was formed from these early meetings and consultation in respect of that document continued through early 2011. This publication represents the outcomes of work to establish an agreed standards statement for the Master of Architecture. Significant further work remains to ensure the alignment of professional accreditation and recognition procedures with emerging regulatory frameworks cascading from the establishment of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). The Australian architecture community hopes that mechanisms can be found to integrate TEQSA’s quality assurance purpose with well-established and understood systems of professional accreditation to ensure the good standing of Australian architectural education into the future. The work to build renewed and integrated quality assurance processes and to foster the interests of this project will continue, for at least the next eighteen months, under the auspices of Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC)-funded Architecture Discipline Network (ADN), led by ADBED and Queensland University of Technology. The Discipline Scholar gratefully acknowledges the generous contributions given by those in stakeholder communities to the formulation of the Statement. Professional and academic colleagues have travelled and gathered to shape the Standards Statement. Debate has been vigorous and spirited and the Statement is rich with the purpose, critical thinking and good judgement of the Australian architectural education community. The commitments made to the processes that have produced this Statement reflect a deep and abiding interest by the constituency in architectural education. This commitment bodes well for the vibrancy and productivity of the emergent Architecture Discipline Network (ADN). Endorsement, in writing, was received from the Australian Institute of Architects National Education Committee (AIA NEC): The National Education Committee (NEC) of the Australian Institute of Architects thank you for your work thus far in developing the Learning and Teaching Academic Standards for Architecture In particular, we acknowledge your close consultation with the NEC on the project along with a comprehensive cross-section of the professional and academic communities in architecture. The TLOs with the nuanced levels of capacities – to identify, develop, explain, demonstrate etc – are described at an appropriate level to be understood as minimum expectations for a Master of Architecture graduate. The Architects Accreditation Council of Australia (AACA) has noted: There is a clear correlation between the current processes for accreditation and what may be the procedures in the future following the current review. The requirement of the outcomes as outlined in the draft paper to demonstrate capability is an appropriate way of expressing the measure of whether the learning outcomes have been achieved. The measure of capability as described in the outcome statements is enhanced with explanatory descriptions in the accompanying notes.