Represented by both the mega-platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and Pintrest, along with an almost incalculable number of mid-size and smaller platforms, these capabilities allow us to reach out and link together with those of similar interest and share news and information that is of high value to our communities. In the past this function was largely carried out by physical social interactions. It still remains within the memory of most when the only non-physical communication was within a home, with a single cabled telephone and these communications where often highly rationed. Humans have evolved around physical interactions and as we are now immersed in a sea of virtual conversations and exchanges there are complex questions to be asked around how these technologies can best be used. How can they be leveraged to create stronger communities aligned to our wellbeing and the wellbeing of the community in which we live?
One of the lessons of the COVID pandemic has been a more nuanced understanding of the role of virtual communications, both its strengths and weaknesses. There is indeed a social construct with a different level of influence that occurs when you physically bring people into the same room, add the sharing of food into that mix and the bond between participants alters further. These types of observations speak to the question of how we want to design our social interactions in this virtual age. Specifically, how we want to balance our physical and virtual interactions and the types of virtual interactions that work best. This work also brings into focus our need to be explicitly conscious of the information environment we design and how it aligns with our values and aspirations.
Currently, most communities have drifted into a somewhat unconscious balance of physical and virtual interactions driven by the highly engaging nature of many social community platforms. In particular, the ability to monetise our attention with the application of highly sophisticated artificial intelligence tools has shifted the balance of intent for these platforms from benevolent sharing to a largely involuntary commercialisation, only loosely coupled to our wellbeing. In going down this path we are creating an attention economy, that, left to itself to evolve, has the potential to negatively distort an individual’s sense of wellbeing. This of course is balanced against the enormous benefits in sharing and community development that these platforms bring. Like a sophisticated car, online community technologies can bring much joy but can also wreak much havoc in inexperienced hands.So, the challenge that has engaged me over the past few years is how do we address this balance of the physical and the virtual, specifically in the context of wellbeing. For me, the focus on wellbeing is central to the creation of a sustainable community and provides a lens that brings into view the complex array of factors that go into the creation and maintenance of a community. For the work we are doing within the Health Transformation Lab at RMIT we are in fact further focusing our attention on the issue of social wellbeing, looking at how the nature of the Physical/Virtual balance impacts the ability to “make and maintain meaningful positive relationships and regular contact with other people in our world”. Along with the physical and mental aspects, it forms the critical third element. All three elements are tightly entwined in the creation of our overall wellbeing. So, while our discussion focuses on the social aspect, the discussion is always in the context of an individual’s physical and mental perspectives.
Currently, most communities have drifted into a somewhat unconscious balance of physical and virtual interactions driven by the highly engaging nature of many social community platforms.
Defining the structures and interactions between the physical and virtual artifacts within our communities and even the definitions around the types of communities we aspire to engage with is a highly complex issue. This is going to require assembling broad multidisciplinary conversations to tease out the factors involved and the directions we wish to proceed in. We are fortunate in having some maps of this terrain that we are using to begin this journey. We will be leveraging health-specific information technology frameworks to define the relevant capabilities, Social Capital concepts to define how those capabilities impact community processes and a Sense of Coherence frameworks to assist in defining possible directions for a group’s civic evolution. However, these are only the starting points to guide our initial conversations.
With these discussions, we plan to explore a future in which we consciously define the type, quality and quantity of the information we receive and create. This is done with the understanding of how information technology influences our view of the world, and our connection to and impact on our supporting communities. This is a future in which we understand our wellbeing objectives and how we can best use technology to reach them.
Our objectives for this activity are clear, to enable individuals to make optimum use of the virtual and physical tools available to them to explicitly craft a wellbeing-focused information environment. To do this we will work with community organisations, government and technology providers in defining and enabling the critical capabilities that need to be present for the individual to achieve this outcome.
Dr Brendan Lovelock, College of Business and Law Honorary Professor
