I appreciated the opportunity to read this paper. It is very strong in its rich empirical data and it ties the social life of CN\u2019s to existing literature in fruitful ways. I am enthusiastic about its publication in JoPP, but I suggest doing a little more work to tighten up and foreground analysis before publication, as it is currently more on the descriptive end of the spectrum. <\/p>\n
Author states: \u201cIndeed, a brief search for \u2018CNs\u2019 in the ACM Digital library shows that the authors of all but one of the top 20 most recent papers about CN(s) studied in the Global South were about CNs that academic researchers helped to establish. \u2026\u201d (p. 2)<\/p>\n
The mandate for a paper of interest to JoPP readers should be broader; unlike some other venues for this research, ideally the topic is not just CNs per se but the analytic topics that arise in this case and might have applicability beyond it. I think this comes out in other parts of the paper but I might suggest rewriting the section that begins here and\/or footnoting some of the information that currently appears in the body. In other words, the point of the paper is not *just* to add to gaps in literature about CNs<\/em>. <\/p>\n To achieve this, I suggest rewriting to foreground the \u201ctranslation\u201d matters the author raises and nesting the gender and commodification sections under this. (This is less a matter of organization\u2014the paper reads well already\u2014but more to highlight the analysis.) Currently, the matter of translation appears in the abstract and early on in the paper but then drops out, but it seems like it is\/should be a main rubric. <\/p>\n To me, the sections on monetization and meshworking seem to be more or less on a continuum\/very analytically related to the commodification section, so maybe integrate those three more? Or include them as subheadings under an umbrella heading? I\u2019m agnostic about the main heading for this section, but these topics all seem to broadly concern the matter of community practices and understandings of CNs\u2019 value, versus the market-based language that often accompanies technologies and ICT4D interventions. <\/p>\n One other matter\u2014the paper does not include a word count (that I saw), but it strikes me as a bit on the long side. In a rewrite, it could be perhaps be streamlined slightly. Partly I am reacting to the fact that each of the author\u2019s main points\u2014the thingification of spectrum and the undervaluation of women\u2019s work in CN contexts\u2014could actually be its own paper (which again points to the richness here). I might also trim out the temporalization argument, which is interesting but so subsidiary that I wondered what it was doing here. (Another option would be to expand it and make three nested points, but as the paper is already long, probably that is not good advice.) <\/p>\n The remainder of my suggestions are additional literature the author may wish to review to strengthen the paper\u2019s grounding in critical social studies of technology. <\/p>\n See Kat Jungnickel\u2019s discussion of why does wifi stick to men? In her book DIY Wifi<\/em>; and see Yuwei Lin on the systemic denigration of work done by women in FLOSS communities, which echoes exactly the author\u2019s observations re. the valorization of tech work and undervaluing of other work like community building. (\u201cWomen in the Free\/Libre Open Source Software Development.\u201d In Encyclopedia of Gender and Information Technology. Hershey, PA: Idea Group, 2006)<\/p>\n Land as property: this is a more contested terrain (no pun intended) than author acknowledges. Many indigenous people do not believe that land can be propertized, so in that, the author\u2019s argument that the spectrum doesn\u2019t constitute a natural commodity like land starts to break down a bit; it’s not a natural(ized) state of affairs either. One reference, Tuck and Yang, Decolonization is Not a Metaphor for framework and references. It might be stronger to rewrite this around the idea that any<\/em> instance ofstable or \u201cnatural\u201d \u201cthingification\u201d\/propertization represents social work and is contingent\/subject to contestation. Thomas Streeter\u2019s book Selling the Air does a very nuanced job surveying some of the author\u2019s concerns about the process of naturalization of spectrum as a thing that can be commodified. <\/p>\n Lastly, at the risk of being \u201cthat reviewer\u201d(!), I include a couple more citations from my own research:<\/p>\n Dunbar-Hester, Low Power to the People, MIT Press (2014): also discusses both the undervaluation of women\u2019s work in (tech-valorizing) community tech circles (ch 3); the inadequacy of market metrics and frustration of community groups chasing market metrics to give value to their enterprises (ch 6)<\/p>\n And an article on stalled tech projects in East Africa that might also be somewhat relevant; the argument here has some resonance with the author\u2019s observations regarding translation (and see the Woolgar piece in the references, which was main plank for this analysis): Dunbar-Hester, Frailties at the Borders: Stalled Activist Media Projects in East Africa. International Journal of Communication<\/em>, volume 10 (2016): 2157\u20132178. <\/p>\n I want to start by commending the author on a very relevant piece of work that has the potential to In addition, there are number of formal issues to take into account:\n<\/p>\n Yes, the subject matter is of high<\/strong> relevance to both an academic and a practitioner public. <\/p>\n \t\tMicrosoft Word – Bidwell_review.docx<\/p>\n The approach of the author is certainly interesting. The empirical material it is based on is incredibly On CNs: Maccari, L., Karaliopoulos, M., Koutsopoulos, I., Navarro, L., Freitag, F., & Lo Cigno, R. (2018, June). 5G and the Internet of EveryOne: Motivation, Enablers, and Research Agenda<\/em>. Presented at the European Conference on Networks and Communications (EUCNC), Ljubljana. <\/p>\n On the Global South\/universalism of theory: Say Chan, A. (2013). Networking Peripheries. Technological Futures and the Myth of Digital Universalism<\/em>. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.<\/p>\n Segura, M. S., & Waisbord, S. (2019). Between data capitalism and data citizenship. Television & New Media<\/em>. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1527476419834519 <\/p>\n See above. In principle no, but some connections need to be made more explicit. <\/p>\n In the present stage, not sufficiently. The manuscript needs a careful proof-reading, as it contains many typos; many sentences are unfinished; references are sometimes incorrectly cited and\/or inserted in the text. <\/p>\n Conclusions should be expanded (see above); methods& data section can be shortened.<\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Reviewer: Anonymous 1) Is the subject matter relevant? 2) Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred? 3) Are there any noticeable problems with the author\u2019s means of validating assumptions or<\/p>\nReview B<\/h2>\n
Reviewer: Stefania Milan<\/h1>\n
\ninterest and benefit both the academic and the practitioner communities. The article is grounded
\non an impressive amount of empirical data and fieldwork in various countries of the so-called
\nGlobal South. The author shows familiarity with the relevant literature and proposes an original
\nreading of community networks (CNs)\u2014one which simultaneously departs from the many
\ntechno-determinist and techno-solutionist interpretations of the phenomenon, and constructively
\nseeks to offer a set of variably actionable learnings. However, as it stands, the article is in need of
\na number of revisions before publication. In what follows, I outline the main problems:\n<\/p>\n\n
\n
\nreader to follow. The manuscript would benefit for more signposting (including e.g.
\nenumerating the aspects the author touches upon). The reader needs further help to
\nnavigate the wealth of material and the narrative more in general.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
\nstructure of the paper.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
\nare missing (e.g., Fournier 2013, Nightingale 2019…), and others are poorly referenced.
\nThere are quotes in the text that would call for page numbers (e.g, the quote from Crabu
\nand Magaudda 2018 on pg 4: note here even the first author is wrongly indicated with the
\nfirst name instead of the surname).<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
\nunfinished sentences and broken punctuation. Don\u2019t forget to break down acronyms (e.g.,
\nMNOs) and potentially obscure references (e.g., Tekio).<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n1) Is the subject matter relevant?<\/h3>\n
2) Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?<\/h3>\n
\nrich. I recommend checking out the following contributions:\n<\/p>\n
Crabu, S., Magaudda, P., Giovanella, F., & Maccari, L. (2015). A Transdisciplinary Gaze on Wireless Community Networks. Tecnoscienza. Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies<\/em>, 6<\/em>(2). <\/p>\n
Milan, S., & Trer\u00e9, E. (2019). Big Data from the South(s): Beyond Data Universalism. Television & New Media<\/em>, 20<\/em>(4), 319\u2013335. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1527476419837739<\/p>\n3) Are there any noticeable problems with the author\u2019s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?<\/h3>\n
4) Is the article well written?<\/h3>\n
5) Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?<\/h3>\n