Crowdsourcing and Cognitive Data Analytics for Conflict Transformation - Istvan Csakany - 2014

CROWDSOURCING AND
COGNITIVE DATA
ANALYTICS FOR CONFLICT
TRANSFORMATION
2014
ISTVÁN CSÁKÁNY
MAS thesis | swisspeace, University of Basel

1
CROWDSOURCING AND COGNITIVE DATA
ANALYTICS FOR CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION
A thesis submitted by
ISTVÁN CSÁKÁNY, HUNGARY, ISTVAN@CSAKANY.NET
to swisspeace, Basel, Switzerland
in partial fulfilment of the requirements
for a Master of Advanced Studies Degree
in Peace and Conflict Transformation
accredited by the Advanced Study Centre
at the University of Basel
Word count: 15.212
December 2014
Thesis supervisor: Fred Dubee, freddubee@gmail.com

2
ABSTRACT
The thesis discusses the opportunities of using crowdsourcing and cognitive data analytics
to increase the efficiency and accuracy of conflict transformation practices. It builds on Ken
Wilber’s integral theory and AQAL model to identify the common ground between the
transcend method of Johan Galtung, the elicitive conflict transformation approach of John
Paul Lederach, and selected cases of crowdsourcing and cognitive data analytics
applications. The theories are then applied to the three case studies of the practical use of
crowdsourcing and the perspectives in cognitive computer science. The crowdsourcing
examples include the constitutional reform process in Iceland (2011–2013), the UNHCR
Ideas program, and Sugata Mitra’s School in the Cloud (SOLE) initiative. The case of
cognitive computing is discussed through the analysis of IBM Watson’s utility in medical
sciences. The thesis concludes that augmenting human intelligence and exploiting the
knowledge of large masses through crowdsourcing and cognitive data analytics are viable
options also in the field of conflict transformation and peace research. There are already
examples of good practices but there is a significant difference between the utility of
various approaches in favour of those that build on a human–computer partnership and
are open to redefining existing paradigms.

3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT...............................................................................................................................2
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................4
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OF CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION .............................................7
Ken Wilber – The AQAL Model............................................................................................7
Johan Galtung – Transcend Method ...................................................................................9
John Paul Lederach – Elicitive Conflict Transformation .....................................................11
Lewis A. Coser – The Functions of Social Conflict ..............................................................14
ICT FOR DEVELOPMENT........................................................................................................15
CROWDSOURCING CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION ................................................................18
Constitutional Reform in Iceland.......................................................................................19
UNHCR Ideas Powered by SpigitEngage ............................................................................24
School in the Cloud...........................................................................................................28
COGNITIVE COMPUTING FOR CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION................................................31
FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES – RESEARCH IDEAS........................................................................36
National Consultation on the Regulation of the Internet in Hungary.................................36
Cognitive Informatics within the UN System.....................................................................39
CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................40
REFERENCES .........................................................................................................................44

4
INTRODUCTION
Crowdsourcing and cognitive analytics are two emerging practices that are attracting more
and more attention from people around the world. The time has passed when the utility of
these practices was examined exclusively within the field of informatics. People and
organisations from various walks of life attempt to make use of crowdsourcing and cognitive
computing and in many instances their actions are indirectly or directly aiming at transforming
conflicts. This thesis demonstrates that the use of these practices creates new opportunities.
It examines the theoretical background of conflict transformation and identifies those
circumstances and key entry points that allow us to overcome the limits of conventional
practices.
***
My history with information technologies for humanities has begun in the field of
development education. Technological development in the 21st
century gave a lot of
opportunities to people all around the world to break down long-standing development
obstacles. One of these barriers is the simple fact that it does not matter how small our world
has become — most people are still too far from one another (both physically and in mind).
When I saw students from Hungary and Kenya sitting in a virtual classroom and sharing their
thoughts with one another, and then, a month later, still keeping regular contact, planning
joint projects, helping one another in classroom assignments, and gradually becoming friends,
I felt that I was on the right track. Following this experience, I began to examine the role of ICT
in fields that usually do not receive much attention. Technologies can help us to deliver
solutions to complex problems and there is a whole new dimension to discover as soon as we
become able to look at ICT from a different perspective. ICT not only is a means of
development but also redefines basic paradigms and often makes traditional development
objectives obsolete.
Meanwhile, I began my studies in peace and conflict transformation and there was one
question that had occurred to me again and again: Can ICT change the way of conflict
transformation? The answer seems simple. It stands to reason that ICT changes the way in
which we communicate, our capability to access and process information, and many other
aspects of peacework. When ICT’s role is examined from this particular angle, new

5
technologies are considered merely an update to the peaceworker’s traditional tools. This is
already a significant improvement. The fact that an individual can change the course of events
through sharing the right information at the time on the right platform is a phenomenon that
is definitely worth a closer look. Nevertheless, in my experience, this is still a limited
understanding of what ICT really is. Stopping at this point also implies that regardless of the
changes in the circumstances, we are unwilling to reconsider our original objectives.
Betting on the arrival of the age of artificial intelligence (AI) and theorising a programmable
peace agent could be another approach. However, the simulation of intelligent behaviour is
not yet proven to be possible. The Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence (Frankish &
Ramsey, 2014) gives a comprehensive overview of the current state of artificial intelligence. It
is evident that while there is considerable progress in AI research, the breakthrough has not
yet happened. Certain aspects of the human way of thinking can be translated into algorithms,
but a generally autonomous, highly adaptive system that operates as a social entity is only a
future vision. Consequently, the idea of an artificially intelligent peace agent does not have
practical implications to our presence.
For all that, there are many edifying practices that go beyond the traditional paradigm of using
ICT as a tool. Crowdsourcing and using crowdsourced data in conflict situations became
general practice in past years. The advent of mobile telephony in developing regions opened
up a rich pool of information. There is still a long way to go but there are examples of game-
changing developments. Thanks to the rapid expansion of mobile technologies, people often
have access to real-time information about conflict zone events. This can be life-saving for the
victims and also useful for the ones who want to deliver help. Soliciting contribution from the
crowd is trending in many fields. From saving lives after natural disasters to strengthening
political participation through e-governance, crowdsourcing seems to be a solution that is
often put into practice.
Meanwhile, we also witness the emergence of cognitive computing. Data analytics by
cognitive means is still at an infancy stage, but there are more and more publicly available
solutions. IBM’s cognitive solution, Watson, has already been proven to be helpful in medical
use (Neill, 2013). It is able to learn and interpret natural language and answer questions.
Combined with its speed in processing a large amount of unstructured data — which accounts
for 80% of all data (Bellaver & Lusa, 2002, p. 26) — Watson can be a powerful resource in

6
many industries. It makes the user capable of getting answers to questions which were earlier
the privilege only of the brightest minds in our world. In other words, Watson enables us to
test hypotheses and make big structures understandable by temporarily extending the
capacity of the human mind.
Just like in the case of crowdsourcing, it is worth taking a look at the opportunities that such
development has for conflict transformation practices. Should we use these new means as
tools in order to make our conventional efforts more efficient? Or should we rather rethink
our strategies and form an alliance with these technologies?
The objective of this thesis is to find a common ground between the ideas of prominent peace
theorists and practitioners — John Paul Lederach and Johan Galtung — and the above-
mentioned means of soliciting the contribution of large crowds and the cognitive analytics of
big structures. With regard to crowdsourcing, I will examine real-world examples, such as the
case of the Icelandic constitutional reform, the pioneering partnership of UN High
Commissioner for Refugees and Mindjet, and Sugata Mitra’s School in the Cloud (SOLE)
program. In the case of cognitive computing, my aim is to illustrate the difference between
conventional computing and cognitive computing and examine how the use of cognitive data
analytics in medical sciences could serve as a good example for use in conflict transformation
and peace research.
In 1960, J. C. R. Licklider, an American psychologist and computer scientist, published an article
entitled Man-Computer Symbiosis. He imagined a world where computers do not facilitate
the solution of preformulated problems; instead they expedite formulative thinking. The core
element of his vision was a new partnership between humans and their electronic peers with
the ultimate objective to become intellectually capable through this unique symbiosis
(Licklider, 1960).
My hypothesis follows the logic of Licklider’s way of thinking:
Crowdsourcing and cognitive computing, if they are put into practice in the
framework of a human–computer partnership, can enable us to better deal
with social conflicts and increase the accuracy of conflict transformation
practices.

7
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OF CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION
It stands to reason that this thesis examines the case of conflict transformation and avoids the
use of terms such as conflict resolution and conflict management. Despite the fact that they
are often used as mere synonyms, there is a fundamental difference between the meanings
of these concepts. The primary objective of this chapter is to clarify what I mean by conflict
transformation and what are the most influential corresponding theories.
A thorough analysis of each and every major work on the topic would fill libraries; therefore,
I focus on the transcend method of Johan Galtung and the elicitive conflict transformation
theory of John Paul Lederach. Furthermore, in order to provide a different angle on the issue,
I will briefly also introduce Lewis A. Coser’s functionalist approach on social conflicts.
To begin with, it is inevitable to define a framework that enables us to examine the above-
mentioned theories and the practical cases of crowdsourcing and cognitive computing in the
same coordinate system. Ken Wilber’s (1997) integral theory and, more specifically, his AQAL
model are a good starting point to understand the complexity of human nature and illustrate
why there are so many theories about conflict and peace and why artificial intelligence in its
purest sense might never be more than fiction.
Ken Wilber – The AQAL Model
The AQAL model is a complex theoretical framework that helps us to explore other theories
by making them comparable along different dimensions (Esbjörn-Hargens, 2009). Ken Wilber’s
key idea is called holism. Everything that surrounds us — Wilber calls them holons — has two
main attributes: everything is simultaneously self-reliant (complete) and part of a larger entity
(incomplete). This principle can be applied without any restriction to each and every holon
from particles to social entities.
The characteristics of holons can be described along four dimensions or quadrants (fig. I). If
these quadrants are shown on a diagram, then the horizontal axis will represent interiority
versus exteriority and the vertical individuality versus collectivity. The first quadrant contains
the interior attributes (intentions) of the individual holons, while the third quadrant illustrates
the fact that every individual holon belongs to a communion. Therefore, the third quadrant

8
1 2
3 4
plays a role in interpreting the collective forms of individual consciousness, such as cultural
patterns, value systems, worldviews, and the logic of the crowd. The second and fourth
quadrants on the right side contain
the holons that are empirical
phenomena or objective
realities. The second quadrant
refers to the perceivable
behaviour of the individual
holons, while the social
quadrant focuses on the
behavioural patterns of a
society. As Wilber also
highlights in his article (1997),
many researchers focus their
attention on one of the
quadrants and often ignore the
existence of the others. He cites
the example of the materialist
viewpoint that often even denies the existence of intentional consciousness.
In the case of crowdsourcing for conflict transformation, we talk primarily about collective
action. Therefore, the focus is on the bottom quadrants. However, there is a significant
difference between whether we include the interior side or we focus exclusively on the social
behaviour. If we employ only a structural-functionalist viewpoint, then theoretically it is
possible to effectively describe any social behavioural pattern, including behaviour in social
conflicts. Consequently, there must be a super algorithm that could lead us to actual solutions.
Yet, this approach ignores, among other things, the non-linear characteristics of human
thinking. In order to have an integral approach regarding the crowd and include the interior
dimensions of the holons, it is inevitable to shift towards the interior-collective quadrant,
embrace culture, and include tacit knowledge.
Wilber also notes that each quadrant has depth, which refers to the stage of complexity. Each
stage is a symbolic development milestone of the human mind’s level of maturity (O’Fallon,
INDIVIDUAL
EXTERIOR
INTERIOR
INTENTIONAL BEHAVIOURAL
CULTURAL SOCIAL
COLLECTIVE
Figure I – The quadrants of the AQAL model (Wilber, 1997)

9
2012). When going towards the more complex development state, awareness also increases.
For example, in the fourth quadrant we can examine the course of social development from
an empirical viewpoint. There is a clear development path that leads from the first societies
with division of labour to the complex forms of information-based societies. It is also
important to highlight that, by increasing the awareness, we can gain the ability to transcend.
Furthermore, instead of protecting our own truth, we will become more understanding
towards the value system of others (Wilber, 2000, pp. 51–52).
To sum up, Ken Wilber’s AQAL model shows that those theories have the most utility, which
is spread through all of the four quadrants and has a certain level of maturity in each
dimension. Wilber strongly advises not to reduce our attention to a certain quadrant.
Reductionism might be especially harmful if it happens in favour of the externalities. This is,
however, an often noticeable scenario in the case of system theories that explain the
functioning of society on the basis of empirical aspects only and that ignore cultural traits and
subjective realities. The key idea is a balanced mix of the different dimensions. For these
above-mentioned reasons, Wilber’s AQAL model is a useful tool to examine conflict and peace
theories and match them to conflict transformation practices that employ crowdsourcing and
cognitive data analytics.
Johan Galtung – Transcend Method
Johan Galtung’s fundamental idea was to draw a clear line between the concepts of
peacekeeping, peacemaking and peacebuilding. Peacekeeping is exercised in situations where
the primary aim is to reduce open violence and establish a physically safe environment. A
typical way of peacekeeping is deploying armed forces and using power to prevent violent
behaviour. Peacemaking usually takes place in diplomatic dimensions in the form of official
negotiations. It aims at reconciling political and strategic differences that ignited the violence.
Peacebuilding, on the other hand, means “the practical implementation of peaceful social
change through socioeconomic reconstruction and development” (Galtung, 1975).
The concept of peacebuilding also implies that violence has a structural dimension that
normally manifests in inappropriate social, political and socioeconomic systems. Galtung
refers to this as structural violence, and notes that violence is often caused by hierarchical
classification of social groups with the aim to maintain social order. The consequence of
Galtung’s structural approach is apparent in his works, as he sets a higher value upon

10
peacebuilding than upon peacekeeping and peacemaking. He also created the category of
cultural violence, which refers to those attitudes and beliefs which might trigger violent
behaviour.
Another important aspect of Galtung’s approach is the extended concept of peace and the
differentiation between negative and positive peace. Negative peace is the absence of direct
violence, while positive peace refers to the absence of both direct and structural violence. In
other words, positive peace only exists if basic human needs are met and self-realisation is
possible.
These concepts can also be seen as the fundaments of Galtung’s grand framework, the
Attitude-Behaviour-Contradiction (A-B-C) Triangle or Conflict Triangle (Galtung, 1969). Each
vertex refers to a certain dimension of the conflict, while the edges symbolise the
interrelatedness. Attitudes (A) belong to the cognitive-emotional-perceptual layer. Do we
consider ourselves to be superior or equal to others? Are we able to use empathy towards
someone whose interests are contradicting ours? What are our beliefs and preconceptions?
Tackling a conflict on the level of attitudes is one of the three entry points that Galtung
recommends. The second option is to focus on the behavioural (B) dimension. In Galtung’s
understanding, behaviour refers to the implicit and explicit forms — from inner thoughts to
physical actions — of expressing hatred. In this case the peaceworker’s objective is to provide
nonviolent alternatives to these thoughts and actions. The third vertex, contradiction (C),
denotes the clash of interests both within the self and among people. However, the author
points out that these incompatibilities are often not original. Sometimes it is enough to
examine the issue from a wider perspective in order to unveil deeper causes of the conflict.
This is the third gateway that enables us to influence the conflict. Finally, the connections
between attitude, behaviour and contradiction need to be considered. Addressing the conflict
in one of the three dimensions has an immediate effect on the other two. For instance,
changing the attitude can be a trigger that alters the perceived utility of nonviolent behaviour
and encourages the parties to use peaceful means and reach out towards one another.
The practical use of these aforementioned theories are summed up in the Transcend Method
(Galtung, 2004).

11
The next question is how Galtung’s theories match Wilber’s AQAL model. It is evident that
Galtung’s transcend method is a holistic approach and all of the four quadrants are addressed
by different elements of the theory. On the other hand, his holism is also limited as he lays
significantly more attention on the empirical dimension of the concepts. Culture, attitude and
subjective values are considered but their utility is rather reduced. In my understanding,
Galtung puts rationalism in the foreground and sees the interior dimensions as secondary.
This is also underlined by the systematic nature of the transcend method in which culture is
just another variable that can be understood and tackled by rational means. Wilber (2000b, p.
152) claims that if cultural values are judged upon their utility to create social balance, it leads
to moderate reductionism, which, in certain cases, can be rather problematic. This was also
recognised by the social anthropologist Stephen Ryan (1995) who slightly modified Galtung’s
conflict triangle in order to put more emphasis on the social and motivational aspects of
conflicts. He focuses more on the grassroots level and the relationships among people
affected by the conflict. John W. Burton (1990) highlights the same weak spot in Galtung’s
work and argues in favour of establishing suitable conditions to build cooperative
relationships.
In short, Johan Galtung’s transcend method is a holistic approach with subtle reductionism in
favour of the external (right-hand) quadrants. Galtung recognises the importance of both the
external and internal dimensions of the conflict but puts more emphasis on pragmatism and
objective goals. Nevertheless, Galtung’s approach, especially his emphasis on the structural
causes of conflicts, is still a big development in comparison to the traditional conflict theories
that I will later introduce through the example of Lewis Coser’s functionalist approach.
John Paul Lederach – Elicitive Conflict Transformation
John P. Lederach’s theory of elicitive conflict transformation had a wide-ranging effect on the
field peace studies. The fundamental ideas of his praxis can be clearly seen in his definition of
conflict transformation. Lederach (2003, p. 14) claims that “conflict transformation is to
envision and respond to the ebb and flow of social conflict as life-giving opportunities for
creating constructive change processes that reduce violence, increase justice in direct
interaction and social structures and respond to real-life problems in human relationships”.
The inclusion of the inner dimension and the social-psychological aspects of conflicts has a
noticeably important place in Lederach’s conceptual framework. In a similar fashion to

12
Galtung, he also points out the drawbacks of conflict transformation through diplomatic
means. While recognising the role of structural conflict reasons and the importance of tackling
these issues, he seeks solutions in a narrower sense, where individual needs and desires have
a higher weight. However, while Galtung employs a rather pragmatic and rational approach,
Lederach differentiates himself by putting the inner-spiritual dimension in the focus.
The conflict as a natural and inevitable episode of human reality is the second important idea
that shapes Lederach’s way of thinking. The definition above clearly explains his position on
the utility of conflicts. Lederach defines the conflict as a “phenomenon of human creation”
that is rooted in relationships and social structures (Lederach, 1996, p. 17). For this reason, a
conflict is a phenomenon that has the potential to continuously transform itself by affecting
its own roots. This constructivist understanding of evolving social conflicts reminds of
Galtung’s position. However, Lederach again emphasises the significance of the inner
dimension by saying that social conflicts are based on relationships. His conclusion also implies
that conflicts are influenced by the cultural history of the environment and the identity of the
parties. Consequently, there can be no universal theory or approach that could be applied to
any kind of social conflict. The most feasible approach, therefore, will be based on multiple
disciplines — from diplomatic actions focusing on structural issues to grassroots projects
tackling the cultural dimension of root causes.
Lederach’s framework is well
summarised in his conflict
pyramid model (Lederach, 1997)
that also illustrates the vertical
capacity of conflicts (fig. II). He
claims that instead of focusing on
a certain episode of the conflict,
it might be a more feasible
approach to think in the
dimension of holistic solutions
(Lederach, 2003). The conflict
pyramid is based on the idea of
interdependence and
TOP LEADERS
Interventionby
negotiation
MIDDLE-RANGEACTORS
Interventionby workshops,
relationshiptraining, commissions
GRASSROOTS ACTORS
Interventionby local peace commissions,
capacity and relationshiptraining, workshops,
developing new narratives, psychological
trauma treatments
Figure II – The conflict pyramid (Lederach, 1997)

13
differentiates between the domains of top leadership, the community level (middle-range
actors) and the grassroots level. The above-mentioned interdisciplinary approach, therefore,
seems to be the only viable solution to address a conflict entirely. However, the importance
of the relationships should not be ignored in this case either. It often happens that there is
only a very weak link between the three levels of the pyramid and there is no substantial
relationship between the various actors. Lederach refers to this phenomenon as the
“interdependence gap”. This problem is less frequently recognised as the need for dialogue,
but is at least as important as the latter one (Graf, 2006).
Lederach’s idea in the first place is to look for an entry point on the community level because
those actors have the highest potential to induce change. Nonetheless, as he explains, it is not
effective enough to follow the practice of prescriptive techniques which aim at neutral,
universally applicable solutions. Regarding the differences in the historic experience of the
stakeholders, their different cultural background calls for a different approach that also takes
these aspects into consideration. Even more importantly, Lederach stresses that the cultural
dimension is more than an incidental circumstance (Lederach, 1997). Culture and cultural
identity are resources that help people to create a context. This context is used for many
purposes — from interpreting events to articulating needs and desires. The elicitive approach,
embracing the underlying cultural complexity of the conflict and avoiding the practical
simplification of the cases, provides a more suitable answer to this dilemma.
The next question is whether Lederach’s ideas and his elicitive approach fulfil the criteria of
being balanced when it is examined through Wilber’s AQAL model. Lederach’s interest in the
spiritual dimension is a good starting point, which clearly directs us to the left-hand (internal)
quadrants of the model. The second clue is the fact that Lederach puts great emphasis on the
non-intentional aspects of human behaviour (upper-left quadrant). This could be a clear sign
of reductionism in favour of social constructivism, but Lederach does not deny the importance
of the objective aspect of social conflicts. In fact, he attributes equal importance to the
structural causes as to the cultural dimension.
To conclude, Lederach’s attempt to avoid reductionism is remarkable, though there is still a
moderate imbalance towards the left-hand quadrants. While Galtung’s conflict
transformation approach follows a rational way of thinking, Lederach has an aptitude to

14
employ techniques that are rather incidental and often based on the intuitive understanding
of the cultural circumstances.
Lewis A. Coser – The Functions of Social Conflict
Besides the holistic approaches of Johan Galtung and John Paul Lederach, it is worth looking
at Lewis A. Coser’s understanding of social conflicts, which is, to a large extent, built on the
theories of Georg Simmel. The reason for this is that while the two above-introduced peace
theorists attempt to understand conflict transformation in a holistic manner, Coser’s take on
the issue is much closer to those ideas that theoretically could be fully integrated into an
elaborate algorithm. This circumstance might be a game changer in a situation where
someone is thinking about a complex solution within a discipline that is not related to peace
research. For the sake of efficiency it is tempting to build a complex solution on simple
components. Ultimately, the result could be, for example, a perfectly functioning
crowdsourcing platform that implicitly drives people towards reductions, ergo insufficient
approaches. In this respect, Coser’s way of thinking about conflicts is most likely something
that should be utilised cautiously.
Coser’s fundamental idea about the utility of social conflicts returns in the works of many
other scholars, and neither Galtung nor Lederach looks at social conflicts as dysfunctional
phenomena. Nevertheless, Coser defines a conflict as a “struggle over values and claims to
scarce status, power, and resources, in which the aims of the opponents are to neutralize,
injure, or eliminate the rivals” (Coser, 1956, p. 8), which is a sharp contrast to previous authors’
positions.
Without going into detail about Coser’s theories, I will highlight some findings of Coser that
illustrate the nature of his reductionism and exclusive preference of empiric knowledge and
objective reality.
Firstly, the group-binding function of conflicts has to be examined. Coser argues that conflicts
are the boundaries between groups and also serve as a reference to create unity among the
members of the separated groups. In other words, communities and groups come to life by
the conflict and through the conflict. He argues that when a social structure is no longer
considered legitimate, individuals with similar object positions will come, through conflict, to
constitute themselves into self-conscious groups with common interests (Coser, 1956, pp. 37-

15
38). Moreover, he claims that social conflicts play an important role in maintaining the basic
societal functions by building relationships. Without explicit hostility, disagreeing parties
would simply withdraw and disrupt the connections between them (pp. 47–48). This
statement also implies that certain conflicts are better left unresolved. Coser cites the
example of industrial conflicts that are often the main reasons for continuous development.
Conflict resolution in these situations might cause even more harm than the unfolding conflict
itself (p. 198).
To sum it up, when Lewis A. Coser formulated his conflict theory, the agenda of sociology and
political science was, to a large extent, determined by the Cold War events and Talcott
Parson’s idea of structural functionalism. Coser, as a recognised sociology professor in the
United States, attempted to further develop the already existing idea of functional conflicts to
meet the exigencies of the time. He did not contribute to a paradigm shift; however, unlike
Simmel, he was more open towards differentiating between functional and dysfunctional
conflicts. Therefore, in Wilber’s AQAL model, Coser is clearly positioned in the right-hand
quadrants. His theories do not touch upon subjective matters or the role of culture and value
systems in conflicts. Coser’s approach is purely functional and based on logical reasoning. This
makes him unanimously an example of extreme reductionism. Nonetheless, his logical
reasoning and simple views of conflicts also helped to make his theories well known and often
referred to.
ICT FOR DEVELOPMENT
Besides the theories of conflict transformation, it is also important to examine the related
concepts on the side of information and communication technologies. The quotation from
Licklider in the induction chapter illustrates it well: ICT has also a subjective dimension.
Computer software can be seen as a tool or also something that is more than that. In the first
case the focus is on the optimisation of existing procedures and practices, while in the second
case the aim is to enable something previously non-existing. My hypothesis fits the latter
category and the thesis looks at crowdsourcing and cognitive analytics on system-level design.
In this respect, these two concepts fall into the category of information and communication
technologies for development (ICT4D).

16
The use of IT (information technologies) solutions before the 1990s was limited to two main
actors: governments and private enterprises. While the former ones used IT to support their
internal administrative tasks, the private sector had gradually discovered that the effective
use of information technology may also contribute to economic growth. This development led
to the emergence of the initial concept of employing ICT (information and communication
technologies) to support international development efforts. The two main factors that gave a
push to this process were the rapid growth of Internet users during the 1990s and the growing
importance of international development, underlined by the adoption of the United Nations
Millennium Declaration and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2000. During this
period, ICT was seen as a set of tools to deliver development goals more effectively than
earlier.
The very first global ICT4D agenda was set in 2000 by the Digital Opportunities Task Force
(DOTforce) of the G-8. The DOTforce was established by the Okinawa Charter on Global
Information Society, which highlighted the importance of bridging the digital divide between
the developed and developing countries and defined the four main areas of action: (1)
fostering policy readiness, (2) improving connectivity, (3) building human capacity, and (4)
encouraging participation (Hart J. A., 2004). A year later, based on the request of the United
Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the United Nations also established a high-
level Task Force on Information and Communication Technologies (UNICTTF) with the
objective to “put ICT at the service of development for all” (Information and Communication
Technologies Task Force, 2001). Finally, as the highlight of the era of ICT4D 1.0, the two phases
of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and the establishment of the United
Nations Group on the Information Society (UNGIS) have to be mentioned. WSIS declared a
common vision towards establishing an inclusive and development-oriented information
society and “turning the digital divide into a digital opportunity to all” (International
Telecommunication Union, 2003), while the UNGIS became responsible for implementing the
WSIS objectives.
It seems that on a policy level, ICT4D proved to be a successful concept that gave answers to
the emerging issue of the digital divide in due time. However, it is important to examine ICT4D
also from the side of the actual practices and see whether it could live up to its full potential.
To begin with, three periods of ICT4D 1.0 have to be identified. Until the 1990s it was a general

17
phenomenon that ITC was addressed separately from mainstream development efforts and
marginal, merely technical roles were attributed to them. Later, the increased connectivity of
people and rapid development technologies turned the isolation into idolisation. ICT4D gained
supremacy over development studies but fell short of the expectations. Consequently, this
period was followed by an integrative approach that turned ICT into subservient means —
towards achieving development objectives. In other words, ICT was deemed as a set of tools
(Heeks, 2008).
The main problem with the integrative approach is that it is still ignoring the real potential of
ICT. The process starts with the formulation of a development goal, followed by a thorough
analysis of the role information and communication, and then concludes with the
identification of those technologies that could contribute to a successful implementation.
Therefore, it is self-evident that ICT in these cases is not considered a generic term for linking
technologies and that its transformative potential is simply ignored. The integrative approach
prevents the stakeholders from thinking outside the box and redefining the development
goals.
Heeks (2008, p. 32) claims that the next generation of ICT4D should focus on both policy and
project level and be formulated along the following questions:
1. From the computer science perspective: What is possible with digital technology?
2. From the information systems perspective: What is feasible with digital technology?
3. From the development studies perspective: What is desirable with digital technology?
In order to overcome the limitations of the currently applied ICT4D theory, it is inevitable to
go back to the foundations of the paradigm and attempt to redesign the concept from the
basics. As can be seen from the description above, ICT4D 1.0 is based on the assumption that
the needs of the target groups are perfectly understood and that the goals that were defined
by various policy papers are universally applicable. However, there is another possibility:
shifting the focus from the needs to the wants.
This paradigm shift would contribute to the increased effectiveness of ICT4D initiatives in two
dimensions. First of all, it would create opportunities for social innovators from both the civil
and the corporate sector. Nowadays, ITC is used as a tool to make existing processes more
effective and conventional development goals easier reachable. According to Chhabra and

18
Rahman (2011), ICT4D 1.0 focused on pre-existing designs and required the target groups to
adapt them. On the other hand, ICT4D 2.0 builds on the resources and demands of the target
groups. Secondly, it would supplement the existing development goals and set targets that
were previously hidden due to the supremacy of existing “good practices”.
Heeks (2008) approaches the paradigm shift from another angle. Since the ITC infrastructure
in many places in the developing world has already reached a level where further
development is not essential, experts may begin to shift their focus from supply-driven
approaches to other aspects. In this respect, sustainability, scalability and impact are the key
factors. This is also an opportunity to go beyond the monodisciplinary perspective and
combine computer science, information systems and development studies. This will lead to a
milestone when thinking about needs not being sufficient anymore and development
professionals not being required to concentrate on the demands of the target communities
and think about their wants instead. In order to reach this aim, it seems inevitable to open
towards the crowd and find a way to utilise its potential.
CROWDSOURCING CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION
After taking a quick glimpse at the ideas and practices of the three above-introduced scholars
and peace practitioners, it can be laid down as a fact that there is a wide choice of theoretical
frameworks upon which a person can rely when working on the transformation of a conflict
or designing a method or a tool that is supposed to help others to do so. In this chapter I will
focus on various attempts when crowdsourcing played a determinant role in transforming a
conflict — whether the aim of conflict transformation was explicit or implicit. I will match the
actual practices to the theories through Wilber’s AQAL model. While keeping in mind that
crowdsourcing is mostly considered a practical tool, my aim is to identify those key
components that make such attempts balanced and feasible to embrace complexity and
maintain efficiency simultaneously.
To begin with, it is important to examine the various definitions of crowdsourcing. An often
quoted definition of the concept is the one of Jeff Howe (2010):
“Crowdsourcing is the act of taking a job traditionally performed by a
designated agent (usually an employee) and outsourcing it to an undefined,
generally large group of people in the form of an open call.”

19
This simplified understanding of the concept seems to include all of the basic characteristics
that would qualify an action as crowdsourcing, but it is worth taking a look at the integrated
definition found in the Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology (2014):
"Crowdsourcing is a type of participative online activity in which an individual,
an institution, a non-profit organization, or company proposes to a group of
individuals of varying knowledge, heterogeneity, and number, via a flexible
open call, the voluntary undertaking of a task. The undertaking of the task, of
variable complexity and modularity, and in which the crowd should participate
bringing their work, money, knowledge and/or experience, always entails
mutual benefit. The user will receive the satisfaction of a given type of need, be
it economic, social recognition, self-esteem, or the development of individual
skills, while the crowdsourcer will obtain and utilize to their advantage that
which the user has brought to the venture, whose form will depend on the type
of activity undertaken."
It can be noted that this definition adds a new element by highlighting the mutually beneficial
nature of crowdsourcing. Keeping these definitions in mind is important because
crowdsourcing is often associated with collecting data from a large group. This is a very limited
understanding of crowdsourcing and it is not in line with the aim of the thesis. I am looking for
practices that prove that crowdsourcing is more than a tool and it is able to help us in
discovering new opportunities in conflict transformation.
Constitutional Reform in Iceland
Constitutional reform is an important step towards tackling structural problems. If it is done
correctly and meets the expectations of the citizens, by changing the basic rules of social,
economic and political systems, many of the root causes of the conflict can be eliminated.
Participatory constitution drafting through (online) crowdsourcing was unprecedented when
Iceland in 2011 decided to use this novel method for rewriting the country’s primary law. This
was the first time that citizens were directly granted the opportunity to effectively contribute
to such a process by using an online platform. Considering the fact that the global economic
downturn had not only financial but also systemic consequences in Iceland, it was somewhat
an unavoidable step to rethink the traditional methodology of constitutional reforms. The

20
usual contributors of the process lost credibility through the course of events and it was
essential to make the reform process more transparent and accessible to a wider pool of
people (Gylfason, 2012a).
Thorvaldur Gylfason, an Icelandic economist and delegate at the Icelandic Constitutional
Assembly, covered the entire process in his articles and research papers (Gylfason, 2012a,
2012b, 2013, 2014). In the following paragraphs I will briefly describe the background of the
idea and the methodology based mainly on his works.
As was highlighted above, the combination of economic and political default created an
environment where the lack of accountability put a serious obstacle in the way of a traditional
constitutional reform. The redesigned constitutional reform process had four main phases:
A National Assembly was set up by randomly sampling the Icelandic citizens who had voting
rights. The 950 members had the task to produce a document that consisted of
recommendations regarding the new constitution. Then the Constitutional Committee, a
panel of experts from different fields, including law, economics, culture and science, was
appointed to produce a comprehensive report that was later shared with the public. The third
stage was signposted by the pioneering work of an elected Constitutional Council that was
responsible for preparing a final proposal. Finally, the Members of Parliament had to vote on
the proposal.
The inclusion of the wider public through crowdsourcing took place in the third stage. The
government appointed the 25 elected members of the Constitutional Council. It was the
Council’s decision — based on the recommendation of the National Assembly and
Constitutional Committee — to involve the public in drafting the text of the new bill. The
Council also proposed the extensive use of new technologies, ranging from conventional
website-based communication to targeted actions on social media sites.
The official website of the Council hosted a platform that was designed to receive comments
and proposals from the public. Gylfason highlights that there were well-founded fears that the
unrestricted access to the website would cause chaos and the system would be flooded by
inappropriate comments, which often happens on politically themed websites. Nevertheless,
the sceptics were proven wrong, as by the end there were 323 formal proposals and 3600
comments ready to be processed — nearly all useful. Finally, the Council approved the bill

21
unanimously and proposed it to the Parliament. The proposal failed to win acceptance. In fact,
the adaptation of the bill process was suspended by changing the rules of the process. The
reasons for the failure are manifold, from substantive problems (e.g. debate over the
ownership of natural resources) to political reasons (e.g. fear of the effects to decentralisation
on the chance of reelection). All in all, crowdsourcing a constitution was a pioneering attempt
and it left a mark on the people’s perception of the utility of participatory practices.
Furthermore, the fact that the bill was finally not adopted by the Parliament is considered
more a temporary setback and not a failure.
To sum up, the main characteristics of the crowdsourcing initiative were as follows:
 The crowdsourcing method was promoted by a group of people
(Constitutional Council) that was designed to demonstrate openness
towards the public instead of representing the political and economic elite.
 The draft articles of the bill were accessible to the public without any
restriction.
 The visitors of the Constitutional Council’s website could either leave a
comment or submit a new proposal. Theoretically, every Icelandic citizen
had unrestricted access to the crowdsourcing platform.
 The Constitutional Council’s meetings were public and streamed through
the Internet.
 Ad-hoc interviews with the Council members were posted on video-sharing
websites.
 The Council members were personally approachable by e-mail or
telephone.
 The Council attributed equal importance to the contribution of the public
and appointed experts (i.e. the Constitutional Committee).
 The Council did not invite the representative special interest groups but
they still had the same level of access to the process as any other Icelandic
citizen.
After this brief introduction there are some important questions to be taken into
consideration. First of all, does the crowdsourcing initiative qualify as crowdsourcing at all?
Was the underlying conflict issue, the democratic deficit caused by structural problems,

22
addressed in a balanced manner? What were the strengths and weaknesses of the initiative,
and what elements can be considered good practice?
The two definitions at the beginning of this chapter give a clear picture about the
requirements that have to be fulfilled in order to consider something a crowdsourcing
practice. In the case of the Icelandic constitutional reform it is self-evident that the aim of the
new process design was to outsource a traditionally committee-based job to a large group. It
was an open call — also in the case of the formulation of the Constitutional Council — and the
participation was voluntary. It might also be taken as a fact that due to the heterogeneity of
the issues that had to be discussed, all of the participants could have benefitted from the
participation. One might argue that the relatively small number of contributors might not be
considered a crowd, but as there are no objective criteria regarding the numbers of active
participants in proportion to the whole population, I consider this aspect to be less relevant.
Finally, it is noteworthy that the participatory element did not cover the whole process. The
final draft was the product of the Constitutional Committee, and the Parliament reserved its
right to approve the outcome of the experiment. For this reason, the final version of the
proposal cannot be described as a crowdsourced document. Elements of crowdsourcing were
definitely incorporated at certain stages of the process. Otherwise, the public dimension was
only indirectly present or completely excluded.
The second question — whether the approach was balanced — requires a closer look at
Wilber’s AQAL model and the theories discussed in the first chapter. The crisis in Iceland after
the economic downturn was both political and financial. The citizens and also the political and
economic actors felt the negative effects in one way or another. The constitutional reform
aimed at tackling the problem in its own complexity by rethinking the basic principles of social,
economic and political issues, such as unfair distribution of goods, political and economic
corruption, unequal voting rights, and national identity. On the other hand, the chosen
method had the primary aim to restore legitimacy in the legislation. There is no question about
objectivity and that the idea can be mainly positioned in the lower-right quadrant. The
dilemma is whether the subjective, cultural aspects were taken into consideration at least
implicitly. Subjective means that interior aspects were not excluded from the process; in fact,
the process was criticised because of the lack of clear methodology, which is also the sign of
a lack of a scientific approach (Ólafsson, 2011). Another clue is the fear of destructive

23
contributions through the online platform. These fears were clearly referring to the inner
drivers of human behaviour and apparently there was no built-in filter to automatically block
these entries. The fear itself belongs to the upper-left quadrant as it is in close connection to
(the lack of) individual consciousness. Nevertheless, the unrestricted nature of the
crowdsourcing element of the process opened the way towards embracing multiple
dimensions of the conflict issue, and the participants — at least in the crowdsourcing stage —
were not forced to exclude subjective matters or act against their consciousness.
With regard to strengths and weaknesses, relying on direct citizen participation in the case of
a constitutional reform is a model to be followed. While crowdsourcing through the Internet
was unprecedented, participatory constitution drafting was already applied in other
countries1
(Hart V. , 2003). Moreover, as is highlighted in Angela Banks’ (2007) article,
participatory techniques are especially useful in post-conflict states where the constitutional
reform is aiming at the resolution of the structural causes of the conflict.
According to my hypothesis, I am looking for those elements that effectively expand the
intellectual capacity of people to deal with conflict. In my view, crowdsourcing in the current
case was mainly the replacement of an obsolete and costly method. It was not necessary to
hold a referendum or meet the citizens in person. Collecting the inputs through an online
system was quicker, cheaper and in line with the newest trends of ICT. On the other hand, it
was also inspiring and ignited a lot of discussions about citizen engagement through ICT. It had
the advantage that introducing the notion of openness and tech-savvy to a traditionally closed
and non-transparent political process appeals to those who lived a major part of their lives in
the information age. However, this is also a disadvantage as it strengthens the digital gap
between the generations and might unintentionally exclude key contributors who otherwise
would be willing to participate. All in all, the crowdsourcing element of the Icelandic
constitutional reform was exemplary and the fact that there were no substantial disputes
regarding the contents of the final draft also proves that the involvement of the crowd in
similar processes is a real option.
1
For example: Canada (1982), Nicaragua (1986), South Africa (1994–1996), Rwanda (2002–2003).

24
UNHCR Ideas Powered by SpigitEngage
UNHCR Ideas is an online idea management program ran in the framework of the UNHCR
Innovation initiative. UNHCR Innovation was launched in 2012 in partnership with the IKEA
Foundation. Its vision is to foster the participation of the organisation’s staff and its
beneficiaries in generating innovative solutions. Its mission is defined along the three main
objectives (Betts et al., 2014, pp. 59–60).
1. Amplification and up-scaling of existing innovative ideas and practices;
2. Connecting likeminded innovators;
3. Exploring and utilising exogenous knowledge and expertise.
The UNHCR Ideas program was initiated in 2013 and the pilot project, based on Mindjet’s
SpigitEngage platform, was implemented in the same year. 318 participants were granted
access to the system. The majority of the contributors (ca. 80%) were selected from the staff
of UNHCR but partner organisations also received invitations. The kick-off challenge was as
follows: “How can access to information and services provided by UNHCR and partners be
improved for refugees and people of concern residing in urban areas?” (UNHCR, 2013) During
the course of the challenge the participants shared 114 ideas and posted 1200 comments. The
decision regarding the winning idea was based upon the evaluation of a panel of selected
specialists. The winning idea was about establishing a centrally maintained online information
hub to collect all the information about various country operations (Bloom, 2014). The
implementation of the project was planned in 2014, but as of October 2014 there is no
information about the progress.
Since the initial pilot experiment there have been another three challenges. The last one
(between August and October 2014) focused on the use of innovative renewable energy or
livelihoods-based programs to empower and protect populations at risk of sexual and gender-
based violence (UNHCR, 2014).
The steps of a UNHCR Ideas challenge — excluding the steps of invitation and registration —
look as follows:
1. Announcement of the challenge by UNHCR
2. Submission of ideas through the SpigitEngage platform
3. Commenting and voting on the submitted ideas

25
4. Initial review by an expert panel of UNHCR staff and external partners
5. Final review by the Leadership Committee of UNHCR management staff
6. Announcement of one winning and two runner-up ideas
The technological backbone of the program that enables UNHCR to crowdsource the ideas is
delivered by Mindjet through its SpigitEngage platform. Before I proceed with the analysis of
UNHCR Ideas it is important to take a look at the technological background. The specific
characteristics of the platform also determine the ways in which it can be used. SpigitEngage
is introduced as an enterprise innovation platform that is “used by the world’s leading brands
to invent new products and services, reduce costs and increase employee and customer
engagement. Leveraging crowdsourcing, purpose driven social collaboration, game mechanics
and big data analytics, SpigitEngage helps companies identify and execute transformative
ideas from their employees and customers at scale to drive business outcomes” (Mindjet,
2014a). It has to be noted that the system is designed according to the needs of enterprises.
This is also underlined by the fact that the circle of the contributors is limited and the platform
has advanced functions to analyse the activity of the contributors. On the one hand, this gives
more of an overlook of the process, which is a considerable advantage during a pilot
experience. However, it also limits the host organisations’ options to engage large and
heterogeneous crowds. Another important feature of the system is that it is designed to
engage the contributors by using gamification as motivation.
Based on the thorough analysis of the initial challenge by Louise Bloom (2014), UNHCR
successfully completed the first experiment and both the concept and the partnership
between UNHCR and Mindjet were proven to be rewarding. However, it also has to be noted
that UNHCR Ideas is still at an infancy phase and there is little proof about its long-term
sustainability. None of the winning projects have been implemented yet and it is still
questionable whether UNHCR as an organisation has the capacity to manage crowd-initiated
innovations. Bloom highlights that the core focus of the initiative is to find a potential solution
to a pre-defined problem. But due to the above-mentioned dilemma regarding the lack of
institutional capacity, it is very likely that the program will later include other phases, such as
the definition of the actual challenge and the management of the implementation phase.

26
To sum up, UNHCR Ideas2
has the following main characteristics:
 It is implemented in partnership with the private sector (Mindjet).
 It receives financial support also from outside UNHCR (e.g. IKEA Foundation).
 It uses an enterprise innovation platform (SpigitEngage).
 The platform has a complex user interface and a management dashboard with
advanced analytics functions.
 The access to the challenges is limited — invitation is required.
 The system is designed to rank the ideas based on certain attributes of the
contributions.
 The winning idea is selected by an external panel of experts.
 The implementation of the winning idea cannot be managed or monitored through the
system.
 UNHCR Ideas does not yet have a permanent place in the UNHCR ecosystem.
 There is limited information available about the initiative — UNHCR Ideas’ website is
not open to the public.
The questions to be answered are the same as in the case of the constitutional reform of
Iceland. Is UNHCR Ideas a true crowdsourcing initiative? The focus is clearly on the outsourcing
of an activity that was previously the task of dedicated teams within the organisation.
Although the crowd is limited in number and consists of only people who are, to a certain
degree, familiar with the actual challenge, it is also heterogeneous in knowledge and
expertise. The criteria of the “open call”, however, are not entirely fulfilled. The challenge is
open to the UNHCR staff and a few selected people representing partner organisations or
beneficiary groups. The maximum number of participants is gradually increasing but there is
still a long way to go until a genuinely open call. Finally, in a similar manner to the Icelandic
initiative, UNHCR Ideas uses crowdsourcing only at the stage of idea generation. The definition
of the problem, the final selection, and the implementation are done independently by a
group of selected experts. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that the crowd in the case of UNHCR
Ideas works more autonomously during the design process and they can directly influence the
ranking of the proposals. Bloom (2014) also highlights that it could be beneficial if the
2
The summary is based on the 2013–2014 version of UNHCR Ideas. The concept is under development; therefore,
major changes are expected to be implemented in the foreseeable future.

27
participants were involved in the preparatory phase and also in creating the actual
implementation plan. In this manner, several of the weaknesses of the concept could be
addressed, including rigidity of the pre-defined problem statement and the obstacles that
prevent the buy-in of the idea on higher levels and the implementation and scaling of the
proposed actions.
How does UNHCR Ideas perform when it is put into the context of the AQAL model and the
theories of Galtung and Lederach? In the case of working with refugees and internally
displaced people, cultural competency is generally considered an important skill (Kemp &
Rasbridge, 2004, pp. 5-6). For this reason, it is also evident that the inclusion of the cultural
reality and the subjective values of the beneficiaries must receive special attention during the
planning phase. UNHCR Ideas does not exclude this dimension. Yet, the majority of the
contributors work for the initiator. Those few participants who have also the subjective
understanding of the problem have statistically less chance of being recognised. On the other
hand, the changes in the concept show that there will be more and more space for external
participants. As the crowd grows and becomes more heterogeneous the cultural dimension
might also strengthen. This also requires openness from the side of the initiators, especially in
the case of defining the challenges. The system seems to be suitable for solving problems that
have subjective and culturally loaded elements. Despite the fact that the foregoing challenges
were focusing on technical problems, I consider UNHCR Ideas to be a concept that has the
potential to address the AQAL model’s left-hand quadrants. With regard to the right-hand
quadrants and the objective aspects of the challenges, both the SpigitEngage platform and
UNHCR’s crowdsourcing concept were designed on the basis of objectivity. This is especially
apparent from the description of the SpigitEngage engine which highlights that the system’s
“powerfulpatented algorithms assure objectivity” and “automated idea graduation” (Mindjet,
2014b). Ultimately, the question is whether UNHCR is able to find a way of finding a balance
between a system that is designed to deliver efficiency and objectivity and the subjective
characteristics of the challenges. From the clues it can be deduced that UNHC Ideas is
committed to making the system more flexible and open to culturally diverse inputs.
The final question is whether UNHR Ideas is a concept that replaces something already existing
or is designed along a new paradigm and creates new, previously non-existing opportunities.
As was verified above, the concept is, to a large extent, based on crowdsourcing. However, it

28
cannot be overlooked that there are still important phases which are managed by traditional
means. It is also evident that Mindjet’s SpigitEngage platform is not simply a tool to collect
ideas. It also has functions to help the participants to map the proposals and rank them
according to the attributes of the contributors. This automated assistance is mainly technical
but it improves the quality of collaborations and, ultimately, the quality of the ideas.
Furthermore, the platform has also a reward system which intends to encourage participation.
UNHCR Ideas does not fully integrate this function; instead the motivation for participation is
that the winning idea will be implemented by the organisation. All in all, this is a more
advanced form of using crowdsourcing to design ideas that address certain (structural) conflict
issues and there is the prospect of improvement. By implementing the recommendations of
Bloom (2014) the crowdsourcing element in UNHCR Ideas could become more powerful. In
this respect, I would highlight two particular opportunities, namely to let the contributors
rephrase the pre-defined challenge and to link ideas. These improvements would allow more
flexible approaches and a shift towards conflict transformation in its real sense.
School in the Cloud
The School in the Cloud (SOLE3
) initiative, unlike the first two examples, is rarely portrayed as
a crowdsourcing idea. Its basic feature is a self-organised learning environment that enables
the students to learn with minimal supervision. The reason I selected this initiative for analysis
is that it tackles a problem which is often considered to be one of the main causes of structural
conflicts. Underdeveloped education infrastructure, the lack of expertise, and human
resources in education are among the key issues that hinder the development of a society and
contribute to conflicts.
SOLE has its roots in one of the early projects of Professor Sugata Mitra, Chief Scientist of the
National Institute of Information Technology (India) and Professor of Education at Newcastle
University. Mitra’s original idea was to create an environment where children can learn
without supervision. The experiment, “Hole-in-the-wall”, took place in 1999 in a slum in
Kalkaji, India. A computer with pre-installed educational software was built in a wall. The
children, although they had no ICT knowledge or similar experience, learnt to use the
computer quickly. Moreover, their progress in learning was comparable to their peers who
3
The SOLE abbreviation stands for “School in the Cloud”. It should not be confused with “self-organised learning
environment”, which refers to a methodology that is one part of the SOLE concept.

29
attended conventional schools and received pedagogic assistance. Mitra (2000) summed up
his hypothesis as follows:
“The acquisition of basic computing skills by any set of children can be
achieved through incidental learning provided the learners are given access
to a suitable computing facility, with entertaining and motivating content
and some minimal (human) guidance.”
SOLE also follows the logic of minimally invasive learning and features the self-organised
learning environment model. The main difference is that the School in the Cloud also
incorporates Mitra’s other project, the Granny Cloud. It was found that children working in
such an environment perform better if there is an adult present who can offer advice and
encourage the participants. Without a mediator present it was often found that there are
children who do not benefit at all from self-organised learning. Different children tend to
excel in areas that are closer to their fields of interest, which leads to the exclusion of the less
engaged participants. This issue can be solved through encouraging the children during the
learning process and the presence of a third person whose mandate is to exercise minimal
intervention if encouragement is needed. Mitra (2010) described it as a self-organised
mediation environment. In other words, SOLE combined three main features: the self-
organised learning environment, virtual collaboration, and encouragement.
The SOLE Toolkit (School in the Cloud, 2014) introduces the concept with the following words.
SOLE is “a platform driven by a global community that connects Self-Organised Learning
Environments and the Granny Cloud in an organic movement towards a more inclusive,
universal education. Anyone can create a SOLE — spark curiosity in children by asking them
to explore a Big Question using the Internet and their ability to work together. Learning
happens spontaneously in these purposefully chaotic environments”.
In practice, during a SOLE session, students work in small, self-organised groups (4–5
participants) that they can change at any time. A mediator is present either personally or
virtually (“Skype Grannies”). The students are given a challenging question (“Big Question”4
)
that they can discuss and research on the computer. It is important to note that they can
4
The SOLE Toolkit lists the following examples: Is life on Earth sustainable? Will robots be conscious one day?
What is the greatest threat to our oceans right now? What is a brain? etc.

30
explore any aspect of the question — no specific guidance is given. Finally, every group
presents its answer.
To sum up, the main features of the SOLE concept are:
 It is student-driven and the mediator’s intervention is limited to process-related issues.
 The mediator’s role is to provide a clear structure and encouragement to the
participants.
 It is collaborative, and promotes group work and learning together with peers.
 It builds on the natural-born curiosity and open-mindedness of children and their
ability to learn critically.
 SOLE largely benefits from ITC and virtual collaboration technologies.
 It reassigns traditional roles and creates new ones. The role of being a “student” is
largely extended, while the “teacher” is replaced by a “mediator”.
The definition of crowdsourcing stipulates that only those participative activities can fall under
this category that were traditionally done by designated agents and later outsourced to a large
group in the form of an open call. The integrated definition further adds that the action shall
be beneficial for both the crowdsourcer (initiator) and the crowd. SOLE is an education
concept which refers to a task that is traditionally performed by schools and professional
educators. In this case every role is outsourced or even redefined. The students remain
students but also take on the role of peer educators. The classroom teacher is replaced by an
agent whose mandate is to present the “Big Question”, supervise the process, maintain the
structure, and provide encouragement. All in all, SOLE not only outsources the traditional
education roles to a largely undefined crowd but also, by utilising the available ITC
opportunities, creates new roles.
When the concept is examined through Wilber’s AQAL model it is evident that all of the four
quadrants are covered by various aspects of SOLE. The question is whether the coverage is
balanced or it is in favour of a certain dimension. The upper-left quadrant represents
individual consciousness. The collaborative work environment (working in small groups)
within SOLE facilitates the process of integrating individual thoughts and ideas. On the other
hand, Mitra (2010) also claims that the efficiency of SOLE-type learning can also be proven by
neuroscientist means — covering the upper-right quadrant. Furthermore, the presence of

31
intersubjective awareness through the diversity of the group and the fact that the “Big
Question” can be explored without any restriction ensure that the lower-left (cultural)
quadrant is also covered. With regard to the lower-right dimension of the AQAL model, the
basic idea of the SOLE concept gives an unambiguous answer. Sugata Mitra (2013) explains
SOLE as a way in which to bring the concept of education in line with the challenges of our
days, especially in places where children have limited access to quality education. This means
that SOLE can also be examined through economics, social sciences and other means that deal
with the social consequences of practices of this kind. Finally, it can also be concluded that the
School in the Cloud is compatible with the way in which Galtung and Lederach look at conflict
transformation. It taps into the very roots of most social conflicts and addresses the cause on
an individual and community level simultaneously. It fosters cultural understanding, elicitive
collaboration, and the development of elicitive problem-solving skills.
Is the SOLE a model in harmony with my hypothesis? Crowdsourcing — both online and offline
— is definitely the core element of the concept. Moreover, SOLE also incorporates the idea of
self-organisation, which was not present in the two previous cases. Finally, it uses ICT as a
means to create something new, in which an endeavour manifests in the creation of new roles
and an entirely unique way of learning. Taking everything into account, the School in the Cloud
has all of the characteristics that are necessary to utilise the opportunities of outsourcing a
traditional task to a crowd. On the other hand, the experimental nature of the model and the
lack of proof regarding sustainability are aspects that can be evaluated only at a later stage.
COGNITIVE COMPUTING FOR CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION
The objective of this chapter is to examine the opportunities of using cognitive data analytics
and other means of cognitive computing during the course of conflict transformation. As was
presented above, although crowdsourcing has a relatively long history in ICT, it is still
challenging to find examples where the integration of the concept happens in a holistic
manner. On the other hand, the power of crowdsourcing is getting recognised in many fields,
from the civil sector to the corporate sector. The conservative approaches aim at making use
of the information gathering capacity of the masses and the (cost-)efficiency of the method,
while the more progressive trials have the objective of using the collective knowledge to

32
create something new. The same comparison applies to conventional computing versus
cognitive computing (CC).
Wang et al. (2010) compare the two computing paradigms on the basis of their fundaments,
the data objects and the corresponding operations. Conventional computing uses structured
data, which means that an agent has already decided how information has to be translated
into abstract bits. The operations can be logic, arithmetic or function-based. In the case of
cognitive computing, on the other hand, unstructured data — words, syntaxes, concepts,
semantics, etc. — can also be used. This allows the user to do syntactic and semantic analyses,
but also to use the system for concept formulation, knowledge representation, learning, and
casual analyses. It is important to emphasise that cognitive computing is not an independent
paradigm — it is the extension of conventional computing. Since cognitive informatics enables
us to work with implicit knowledge, CC can also be pictured as an intelligent knowledge
processor that mimics some parts of the human way of thinking.
Michael Polanyi (1966, p. 4) wrote in “The Tacit Dimension” that human knowledge shall be
reconsidered, starting from the fact that we can know more that we can tell. Polanyi was a
strong critic of absolute objectivity and was concerned with the implicit dimension of
knowledge that belongs to the left-hand quadrants of the AQAL model. Is cognitive computing
an opportunity to make this implicit knowledge usable in an explicit way?
Before the emergence of the CC paradigm, only the human mind was capable of efficiently
capturing tacit knowledge. Consequently, while it had been long proven that the implicit
nature of human communication is an important source of knowledge, a substantial
proportion of the information had to be left untouched. The first attempts to capture implicit
information aimed at the advanced statistical analytics of data bits according to various
attributes. Cognitive analytics extends the limits of statistical approaches by introducing new
techniques, such as contextual analysis and entity-relationship modeling. This is already a
commercially available and widely used technology. However, this still does not allow the user
to process natural language (Maymir-Ducharme & Angelelli, 2014). The first solution that
introduced natural language processing and automated reasoning was IBM Watson.
The DeepQA project of IBM started in 2007 with an ultimate aim to compete and eventually
win against the champions of the Jeopardy! quiz show. The difficulty of the challenge was that

33
the participants had to give the correct answer on the basis of general knowledge clues. This
meant that IBM had to design an open-domain question-answering system that is capable of
understanding natural language and deduce an answer from often ambiguous clues. The final
version of the question-answering pipeline incorporated functions such as natural language
analytics, parsing, relation detection, source identification, hypothesis generation, evidence
discovery, and hypothesis ranking (Ferrucci, 2012). The development of Watson took four
years and the research behind designing a question-answering architecture that was capable
of outperforming human contestants opened up new perspectives. David Ferrucci (2012), IBM
Fellow and Principal Investigator for the DeepQA project, envisaged a tool that will have the
capability to consider entire problem scenarios and “engage in dialogues with users to provide
decision support over large volumes of unstructured content”. Healthcare, as an area where
people need to deal with a large amount of continuously changing unstructured data, was an
evident choice for an experiment of this kind. Finally, it took another two years to develop a
system — Watson 2.0 — that was capable of supporting decisions by producing evidence
profiles and supporting evidence.
Before examining the utility of cognitive computing in conflict transformation, it is worth
taking a look at the practical application of Watson 2.0. There are other remarkable cognitive
solutions — Google Knowledge Graph, Apple Siri, and Wolfram Alpha — but unlike its
competitors, IBM Watson was designed to perform in specific fields, such as healthcare. For
this reason, I consider the practical examples with Watson to be good starting points for
further exploration of other fields of application.
In this case the two Watson solutions that have the highest relevance are Watson Policy
Advisor (PA) and Watson Discovery Advisor (DA). The Watson PA combines multiple data
sources and provides a single view of the entire data set. It helps in the simultaneous analysis
of structured and unstructured data and interprets the result through its question-answering
pipeline. One of the most prominent integrations of Watson PA took place at the University
of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Dr. Clifford Hudis, President of the American Society of
Clinical Oncology, reflected on the first experience of the Watson-based decision support
system (MD Anderson Oncology Expert Advisor) that it will be a transformational tool that
“lets physicians see the results of interventions on other patients who fit a given profile, to
help them determine the most appropriate course of action”. It is also noteworthy that one

34
of the specialists added that the tool will also allow discoveries regarding unknown effects of
pharmaceutical substances that otherwise have never been the subject of any research
(Edwards, 2014).
Watson Discovery Advisor, unlike PA (that is designed to answer questions), goes beyond
keyword search and simple question-answering, and aims at accelerating the discovery
process by looking not only for answers but also for questions that have not been asked yet.
In other words, Watson DA creates a map of information, “connects the dots”, and provides
hypotheses that otherwise would have been ignored (Rhodin, 2014). The Baylor College of
Medicine already reported that their Watson-based Knowledge Integration Toolkit had
identified a protein that will increase the efficacy of cancer drugs and treatment. It was a
discovery that required the review of about 70,000 scientific articles, which would take years
without a cognitive ICT system (Kerz, 2014). To sum up, Michael Rhodin (2014) predicts that
the unique capability of cognitive tools will most likely fundamentally transform professions
and industries where practitioners need to deal with an overwhelming amount of
unstructured data.
It is evident that conflict transformation, if approached from the angle that is also used by
Galtung and Lederach, involves a lot of tacit knowledge. One might collect a lot of factual data
for scientific analysis but implicit information behind hard facts should also be taken into
account. The effort to deal with this challenge is apparent in the case of both of the above-
mentioned peace practitioners. The cultural dimension, the transcendence as a paradigm, and
the intuitive component of the elicitive approach all refer to the use of tacit knowledge that
cannot be processed explicitly. The question is whether the extraction of relevant information
from unstructured “conflict data” and the use of such information to construct conflict
transformation strategies can be supported by using a natural language processing tool, such
as IBM Watson.
Johan Galtung intentionally uses medical terminology in the description of the transcend
method (Galtung, 2004). Diagnosis (What is the source of suffering?), prognosis (What is likely
to happen without intervention?) and therapy (What can be done to reduce violence and
suffering?) are following the same logic as medical science in the case of cancer treatment.
The source of data is also similar. There are thousands of articles and other publications about
conflict-related research, not to mention live data to be found on social media sites. The

35
analysis of these sources requires resources that are hardly available in the field of peace
research. The scarcity of human resources and time in this regard is even more apparent than
in the case of medical research. Taking everything into account, theoretically everything is
available to find viable and holistic solutions but there is not enough capacity in the system to
carry out this task.
How could a tool with cognitive capacity help a peace practitioner? The answer is similar to
the case of the above-referred cancer research examples. A CC tool with natural language
processing function could connect the dots between peace and conflict-related data and
unveil hidden relationships. It could help peaceworkers to discover an alternate use of existing
practices and better predict the effects. It could identify invisible change agents, connect
cases, recommend entry points, and help in the understanding of hidden patterns. In medical
use this opportunity of cognitive informatics is already being exploited; moreover, according
to the first results the significance of this development cannot be overlooked in the future.
This is especially true if we consider that often the first place where such systems are used to
provide competitive advantage is military science.
Nevertheless, there are also some bottlenecks that must be taken into account. Cognitive
computing is at an infancy stage; therefore, its availability is limited and its adaptation to a
specific field needs a lot of resources and special expertise. IBM Watson was designed to serve
specific purposes and the learning process took years before it delivered the first practical
results. Moreover, it can be used only in English. This circumstance is especially problematic
when the source of data — for example, in the case of conflict transformation — includes texts
written in many different languages. IBM Watson was “taught” to understand the semantics
of English and is currently not capable of interpreting data in other languages.
All in all, it is unlikely that in the foreseeable future there will be a CC tool specifically designed
for supporting conflict transformation or peace research. Firstly, there are not enough
available resources to finance the development and integration of such a system. Secondly,
cognitive computing is only scratching the surface of the tacit knowledge that is relevant in
the case of peacework. Yet, even with these deficiencies augmented human intellect
supported by cognitive data analytics might be a game changer in certain situations.

36
FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES – RESEARCH IDEAS
The objective of this chapter is to examine two opportunities when using either crowdsourcing
or cognitive analytics, which could be a real alternative to conventional practices. The first
case focuses on crowdsourcing and examines a planned “online consultation” on Internet
regulation in Hungary. The second case will tackle a more hypothetical question, namely the
opportunities of using cognitive analytics in the United Nations system.
As was concluded in the previous chapters, it is challenging to go beyond the limits of long-
existing paradigms. Most of the time, new ideas are implemented in a rather conservative way
and during the process the innovative edge of the initiatives is being overruled by the principle
of staying on the safe side. A good example of this phenomenon is the case of the
constitutional reform of Iceland. The crowdsourcing process was supervised by committees
and there was the last resort of the parliamentary veto. It speaks volumes that at the end not
even the parliamentary veto was an option. Despite the sceptic voices, the crowdsourcing
element of the process was successful and became a symbol of citizen participation. It was
applauded both in Iceland and abroad. Delaying the vote and the adaptation of the new
constitution was more like an emergency plan. However, this was possible only because the
conventional elements of the process were never replaced. It seemed that the new basic law
would be a “crowdsourced constitution”, but in reality this was not the case. The final verdict
remained in the hands of a few decision makers and it was predictable that no law was going
to be adapted that would have negative consequences on their position. From this point of
view, crowdsourcing was more like a non-binding public referendum. The situation is similar
in the case of UNHCR Ideas. Sugata Mitra’s School in the Cloud program, on the other hand, is
enlightening proof that there is a way in which to get over these obstacles.
National Consultation on the Regulation of the Internet in Hungary
The idea of an online consultation on the regulation of the telecommunication and Internet
service provider market — also known as InternetKon — emerged recently, after the
Government of Hungary faced street rallies because of its plan to levy a tax on online data
transfer. The original plans were shelved in November 2014, but Prime Minister Viktor Orbán
immediately promised a national consultation of the issue due at the beginning of 2015. Such
consultations in Hungary are not unprecedented but this will be the first time that the citizens
can share their opinion online. Although this idea has not been explicitly labelled as a

37
crowdsourcing initiative, it still shows a lot of similarities to the constitutional reform in
Iceland. The objective of this brief overview is to apply the findings of the previous chapters
to a crowdsourcing idea that is still in the development phase and present a solution to the
foreseeable difficulties.
Firstly, it is crucial to analyse the stakeholders of the InternetKon and the underlying conflict
that triggered the events that led to the idea. The Government of Hungary in the past years
has often been criticised because of its measures to exercise stronger control on the media.
The new media law was adapted without adequate public consultation and the main concerns
include a “lack of political independence of the Media Council, which regulates media content
and grants broadcast licenses; unjustifiably high fines for journalists; unclear requirements for
content regulation; and inadequate protection of journalists’ sources” (Human Rights Watch,
2013). This criticism is often echoed by civil organisations, media enterprises and opposition
parties. The idea of a tax on Internet data transfer was seen as an additional attempt against
media freedom and it set off hefty opposition both in Hungary and abroad. The most adversely
affected would have been the end users, and there was a fear that the new regulation might
significantly deepen the digital gap between Hungary and the rest of the world. It is also
important to take into account that approximately 74% of the Hungarian households have
Internet access and typically the younger generation between the ages of 16 and 54 are the
most engaged with online activities (Eurostat, 2013).
InternetKon is not a bottom-up initiative. It was announced by the Government of Hungary in
partnership with the Information and Communication Technologies Association of Hungary
(IVSZ). The preparation of the online consultation is supervised by Tamás Deutsch, the former
Minister of Youth Affairs and Sports, and currently a Member of the European Parliament. To
date there is only one press conference (Government of Hungary, 2014) about the plans,
which gives a good opportunity to see the issues that emerge during the development phase
of a crowdsourcing idea.
 The issue: The regulation of the Internet is a vexed question on the political agenda of
Hungary. While it seemingly tackles practical questions, it has a strong symbolic
dimension. Those stakeholders that are opposing the practices of the current
government are referring to it as an act against freedom of thought and information.
On the other hand, backing down with the plans would bring about a loss of prestige

38
for the government,which could expose them to the political attacks of the opposition.
A public referendum seems unfeasible due to the strict regulations; therefore, the only
remaining logical solution is an open consultation.
 The participants: In order to reflect the relatively young average age of Internet users,
the current proposal is to have the consultation open for Hungarian citizens over the
age of 14. However, there is an amendment which states that only those will be able
to access the questionnaire who are permanent residents of Hungary. In light of the
fact that those Hungarian citizens who live abroad rely even more on online
communication than the ones at home, this seems to be a counterproductive criterion.
Furthermore, it is also noteworthy that there are plans to grant access also to those
who do not use the Internet, but the specific details of the solutions are yet to be
specified.
 The process: At the present moment, the plan is that both the questions and the
answers will be “crowdsourced”. Deutsch emphasised that the aim is to assess the
“expectations and ideas” of the citizens and not to address specific issues. The
organisers will consult with the representatives of the affected organisations and the
end users. Theoretically, everyone will be able to recommend questions but the exact
selection process was not introduced. The consultation will finally take place in April
2015. In the meantime, there is a plan to disseminate information materials and
Hungarian Television (MTV) has also announced that it will contribute to the initiative
by broadcasting educational programs.
 Expected outcome: Interestingly, the question of how the result of the consultation
will be taken into account has not yet been specified. It is also unclear whether the
consultation will contain multiple-choice or also open-ended question. It seems certain
that, unlike in the case of Iceland, the participants of the InternetKon will not be asked
to work on the actual text of the new law.
Is InternetKon a crowdsourcing initiative? Based on the currently available information,
InternetKon is rather an online public opinion poll. Moreover, the dominating presence of the
public actors, especially the unclarified role of the public television, suggests that the final
form of the initiative could also be a deliberative opinion poll. While the original idea is to
“crowdsource” the expectations and ideas of the Hungarian citizens, the “educational”

39
dimension of the process is a clear attempt to drive the agenda in a certain direction. This is
against the fundamental concept of crowdsourcing and also contradicts the basic principles of
addressing a social conflict.
However, as was already introduced previously, fostering citizen participation through
government-driven online initiatives is an emerging practice. Hungary’s first attempt might be
imperfect but it signposts a new trend within direct democracy. The question is whether e-
democracy and crowdsourcing in its original form are compatible ideas or whether the
conservative nature of politics excludes the possibility to give more of a role to the “crowds”.
From a political philosophical perspective, the evolution of direct democracy could allow this
but it would certainly need thorough research to explore the possible scenarios.
Cognitive Informatics within the UN System
Using cognitive computing to support the daily work within the United Nations System might
seem a utopian idea. It is worth recalling the difference between the first and the second
generation of ICT4D. While ICT at the beginning was deemed as a tool to support existing
goals, new technologies could also supplement the existing development goals and set targets
that were previously hidden due to the supremacy of existing good practices. The fact that
UNHCR Ideas is being implemented suggests that the UN System is open to changes, but it is
undeniable that the basic principles regarding general work conduct are remaining practically
unchanged. Crowdsourcing is an interesting opportunity in many cases, as is illustrated by the
challenges within UNHCR Ideas, but beyond a certain level of complexity the intelligence of
the crowd is losing its efficiency and the only alternative is the traditional “committee work”.
The Cancer Center of the University of Texas approached a similar challenge by using cognitive
informatics. Crowdsourcing in the field of cancer research is not feasible because there is a
relatively small group of people who has enough knowledge to effectively work on these
issues. On the other hand, there is a huge amount of unstructured data that might be relevant
to the problem. A “committee” would bring together enough intellectual capacity but it could
process only a limited amount of information. Cognitive analytics solved this problem by
making the unstructured data accessible.
Could cognitive informatics also be helpful within the United Nations? Some of the problems
with which the UN institutions deal are very specific and require in-depth knowledge and
expertise. The human resources, therefore, are limited. Yet, the amount of unstructured and

40
structured data is tremendous and it is very likely that an entity capable of understanding it
could effectively contribute to finding answers to conflicts.
There has already been an attempt to introduce cognitive analytics to the workflow at UNICEF
to increase the efficiency of the U-report project in Uganda. The U-report is an open-source
SMS platform that enables young Ugandans to report what is happening in communities
across the country. There are frequent polls dedicated to a certain issue but the users can also
send unsolicited messages. It fosters youth engagement and gives an opportunity to
community leaders to have a better overview of the problem areas, such as education,
healthcare, gender-based violence, etc. (UNICEF, 2012). The number of users was growing
exponentially in the initial period, and manual processing of the incoming messages became
quickly impossible. Until this point the case was very similar to other crowdsourcing initiatives
that aim at collecting sporadic intelligence from a large crowd. The difference in the case of
the U-report is that the performance of the system was optimised by cognitive analytics.
UNICEF in cooperation with IBM Research designed an automated message-understanding
and routing system based on advanced text analytics. The aim of the system is to process the
reports in real time and route them to the relevant actors — within either UNICEF or
independent non-governmental organisations. Based on the assessment of IBM Research,
both the solution and the partnership lived up to expectations, which is also a sign of further
possibilities to explore (Melville et al., 2013).
Taking everything into account, cognitive analytics within the UN System would need further
research. The similarities between using CC in medical science and in conflict transformation
would even allow a comparative study that could produce a roadmap of implementing an
actual project. Enabling the UN institutions to explore complex relationships and discovering
new entry points to tackle long-standing conflicts could improve the efficiency of the entire
organisation and, ultimately, bring it closer to its goal: to foster peace and international
cooperation.
CONCLUSIONS
In 2014, we are living in the world of the Internet of Things. Everything around us is producing
and collecting data, feeding a big structure. Meanwhile, the human mind does nothing else
but ask big questions and look for answers. We have grand theories, supercomputers, and

41
practically unlimited access to information, but we still seem to be unable to effectively
synthesise at least a fragment of the tacit dimension of human intelligence. Humanity reached
an advanced stage in describing the objective reality, while many of the big questions
regarding the non-empirical dimension of our world remain undiscovered. Tacit knowledge
and hidden relationships might never be visible but this does not mean that we should
overlook their importance and not try to integrate them into our practices.
My hypothesis was that ICT solutions, which emphasise crowdsourcing and cognitive analytics,
could make us more capable when dealing with social conflicts.
Conflict transformation is, to a large extent, not an abstract science. Many aspects of it can be
translated into mathematical models but the underlying logic can only be understood if the
implicit dimension of human consciousness and culture is also taken into account. Wilber’s
AQAL model illustrated that application of those concepts which only consider the objective
dimension are rather limited and extreme reductionism might cause more harm than good.
I was looking for cases that are free from reductionism and address the issue of peace and
conflict in a balanced manner. Johan Galtung and John Paul Lederach, as prominent peace
theorists and practitioners, were logical choices for this analysis. The transcend method and
the elicitive conflict transformation model are examples that were designed to bridge the gap
between subjective and objective. Yet, it was concluded that Galtung methodology is rather
systemic, while Lederach’s approach requires more cultural intuition. This is, however, still a
giant leap forward from the classic conflict theories that were illustrated through Lewis A.
Coser’s functionalist approach.
In the next chapter I examined three examples of crowdsourcing practices. Firstly, I chose the
constitutional reform of Iceland because it is a unique case study illustrating how a
traditionally closed process was made more open and powerful by integrating an ICT-based
crowdsourcing solution into it. However, it was also found that despite the fact that
crowdsourcing was the most emphasised element of the case, the biggest part of the process
took place in committee meetings. The attempt was still exemplary as it proved that the
contribution of the crowd can be substantial even in political matters that are usually very
divisive and often yield destructive behaviour. The second case was about the UN Refugee
Council’s and Mindjet’s joint experiment, UNHCR Ideas, which aims at using the expert

Crowdsourcing and Cognitive Data Analytics for Conflict Transformation - Istvan Csakany - 2014

Crowdsourcing and Cognitive Data Analytics for Conflict Transformation - Istvan Csakany - 2014

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à Crowdsourcing and Cognitive Data Analytics for Conflict Transformation - Istvan Csakany - 2014

Similaire à Crowdsourcing and Cognitive Data Analytics for Conflict Transformation - Istvan Csakany - 2014 (18)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Crowdsourcing and Cognitive Data Analytics for Conflict Transformation - Istvan Csakany - 2014