start a participant list
for groups
Starting a participant list for your discussions on computer use helps you consider who needs to be part of your conversation(s). The emphasis here is on "starting" a list, because as your process unfolds, you'll always want others to help locate more people to bring into the fold. It's also a signal of humility that when you start a list like this, you don't know everyone that you'll eventually need to be in conversation with.
This tactic helps you focus heavily on the strategy of "if computer is 2, what is 1". You'll want to ground your conversations in history and all the real-world and institutional knowledge and experience that you can access, real people and real places, not imagined futures. Some examples of this:
People directly impacted by the computer use
The majority of conversations about computer use are organized and supported by experts of various kinds. And whether these experts are critics or boosters or somewhere in between, they all have on thing in common: a vested interested in keeping the conversation in the narrow domain of the technical. While the technical domain is an important part of any conversation, keeping it there is limiting because it rarely allows the computer use to be refuted entirely, or for the discussion to shift out of technical domain into the primary domain - such as healthcare, education, public space, etc. It also makes the conversations highly inaccessible, as well as non-democratic. To counter this, you can reach out to people impacted by the computer use you are considering could be grouped many ways: by their profession, by where they live, by their demographic, by a common interest affiliation (community groups in other places), etc. Also, as I witnessed in Toronto when new CCTV cameras were being proposed, expanding the conversation participants adds necessary complexity. I went to meetings where civil liberties representatives were arguing against the installation of cameras, and some of the people that lived in the neighbourhoods were in support of them. I saw the same dynamics emerge in Vancouver. Engaging thoroughly with people in the real and named places of consequence to the use of the computer helps develop thinking and approaches to contend with differences of opinion. This can also help bring consensus on the need for non-technical solutions (in both of these cases, properly funding community services for safety).
People that have to work with the computer
Sometimes, when new uses of computers become mainstream, there can be little resistance from the workers that are required to use them because that use is a condition of their material security. But if you can talk to these workers, in formal or informal senses, you will be exposed to a different realm of inputs for your conversation - some relating to negative consequences of use, and some relating to benefits. For example, teachers may be under major pressure to adopt and adapt to the use of computers in the classroom, but may not be well positioned to express their concerns. Others can pick up their points, and make them from a different location.
Subject matter experts - practitioners
If a new computer use is being proposed for your city, in the context of urban planning or transportation or parks and recreation, reach out to people that work in these areas to get an idea of what they think. When increased computer use is proposed in an urban setting, there are many enthusiastic claims about the benefits of, say, new data - but if you speak to urban planning professionals, many have different desires and interests in designing the collection of data for their purposes. So the story being told to the public is not in alignment with the people that serve the public.
Experts in governance
As the leader of a group, you may experience pressure from a board or a funder to move quickly into whatever novel technology idea is popular at the moment. It can be helpful to draw upon long-standing due diligence procedures, and people that specialize in responsibility and liability. This is not to call on technical computer expertise, but rather to call on governance experts that understand the responsibilities that are part and parcel of your authority, as well as that of the board.
Subject matter experts - academics
There are incredibly detailed and narrow types of research done on the use of computers in most private or public contexts. There is, however, often a number of challenges in connecting this research into the context of decision-making processes. But if you are convening a conversation about a specific type of computer use, begin to search out researchers in those fields. Some of them are extremely willing and able to take part in a conversation, and are happy to be included. They are able to assert their opinions quickly because they are deeply researched, and they can often accelerate the progress of narrative building and story-telling. Sometimes the problem or opportunity you are running into has a long track record of being documented as beneficial or harmful.
When a new idea for computer use is being floated, the people in charge of that decision need to be in frequent conversation with the people it will impact: workers, customers, residents, etc. These conversations are not structured into many processes, so they need to be invented. There are slowly growing movements to bring the procurement of new computer programs out for public consultation in the public sector. What does this look like in a workplace? Who needs to talk to who in a workplace in order to secure more input from workers about decisions that impact how they do their work? What does this look like in a non-profit organization? When an advocacy group wants to challenge a new use, or a new law, who else can they bring in to expand their positions and rationale? Starting a list of people to reach out to is a small but mighty practical method for collective action