Project Compass: Digital Opportunities Intelligence Network (DOIN)

Status: Working draft for Project Compass (Merit Network)

Complete Framework Overview

Start here. This document provides a comprehensive overview of the theoretical, empirical, and methodological foundations of the Digital Opportunities Intelligence Network (DOIN) - the core framework of Project Compass.

What is Project Compass?

Project Compass is an initiative to transform digital equity policy from guesswork to evidence-based decision-making. The Digital Opportunities Intelligence Network (DOIN) is the framework that makes this possible by combining:

Digital Opportunities: Measured using the Dagg et al. Compass framework
Intelligence: Bayesian networks (prediction) + GraphRAG (AI Q&A) for evidence-based decisions
Network: Knowledge graphs connecting research, data, and stakeholders

What This Framework Is:

A theoretically-grounded, empirically-validated, operationally-measured system for understanding and achieving digital equity through evidence-based policy interventions.

Not just: “Deploy broadband and hope for the best”
Instead: “Understand the complete pathway from opportunity to equity, measure progress at each stage, predict intervention outcomes, and guide policy with evidence”

The Core Pathway:

Opportunity → Aspiration → Growth Mindset → Digital Equity

Four stages, each grounded in research:

Opportunity - Infrastructure, access, affordability exist (Sen’s capabilities)
Aspiration - People can imagine and navigate digital pathways (Appadurai’s navigation capacity)
Growth Mindset - People believe they can learn digital skills (Dweck’s mindset theory)
Digital Equity - Gaps close, inclusion increases, outcomes improve (measured via Gini coefficient)

Critical insight: Must address ALL stages. Missing any one perpetuates inequality.

The Theoretical Foundation: Six Researchers

1. Amartya Sen (1999) - Capabilities Approach

Nobel Prize economist, Harvard University

Contribution: Opportunity stage foundation

Key concept: Capability = Resources + Conversion factors

Resources alone (broadband) ≠ equity
Need conversion factors: skills, support, social context
Focus on what people CAN do, not just what they HAVE

For digital equity:

Infrastructure (resource)
  + Affordability (conversion factor)
  + Skills (conversion factor)
  + Support (conversion factor)
  = Capability to use digital tools

Read more: TrainingCompassSen.md

2. Arjun Appadurai (2004) - Capacity to Aspire

NYU professor, globalization scholar

Contribution: Aspiration stage foundation

Key concept: Navigation capacity = Cultural capability to imagine and navigate toward futures

Aspiration isn’t just “wanting things”
It’s a learned skill, practiced through social interaction
Poor people have “thinner” aspirational maps (fewer examples, less practice)

For digital equity:

Infrastructure exists (Opportunity ✓)
  BUT person can't imagine how it helps them (thin navigation maps)
  → "Unclear value" (Hampton & Bauer finding)
  → Low engagement despite access

Read more: TrainingCompassAppadurai.md

3. Carol Dweck (2006) - Growth Mindset

Stanford psychologist

Contribution: Growth Mindset stage mechanism

Key concept: Growth mindset = Belief that abilities can be developed through effort

Fixed mindset: “I’m not a tech person” → gives up quickly
Growth mindset: “I can learn this with practice” → persists through difficulty

For digital equity:

Infrastructure + Aspiration exist (Opportunity + Navigation ✓)
  BUT person believes "I'm too old to learn computers"
  → Quits when challenged
  → Skills don't develop

Read more: TrainingCompassDweck.md

4. Kentaro Toyama (2015) - Law of Amplification

University of Michigan professor

Contribution: Explains WHY sequence matters

Key concept: Technology effect = Human capacity × Technology power (MULTIPLICATIVE!)

Technology amplifies whatever capacity exists—high or low
High capacity × Technology = Gap widens in favor
Low capacity × Technology = Gap widens against

For digital equity:

Deploy infrastructure WITHOUT building capacity first:
  Infrastructure × Low capacity = Gap WIDENS

Deploy infrastructure WHILE building capacity:
  Infrastructure × Growing capacity = Gap narrows
  
This is WHY the pathway sequence matters!

Read more: TrainingCompassToyama.md

5. Hampton, Fernandez, Robertson & Bauer (2020) - Empirical Validation

Michigan State University Quello Center

Contribution: Michigan K-12 data PROVES the framework

Key finding: Three gaps = Performance gaps

Missing infrastructure (Opportunity gap)
Unclear value (Aspiration gap)
Uncertainty about affordability (Opportunity barrier)

For digital equity:

Michigan schools with broadband BUT low engagement:
  → Infrastructure alone insufficient (validates Sen + Toyama)
  → "Unclear value" prevents navigation (validates Appadurai)
  → Skills don't develop (validates Dweck)
  
Your participation: K-12 Citizen Science project
"Research became our voice"

Read more: TrainingCompassHamptonBauer.md

6. Dagg, Rhinesmith, Bauer, Byrum & Schill (2023) - Measurement Framework

MSU Quello Center, Merit Network, NDIA

Contribution: Digital Opportunities Compass - HOW to measure everything

Six components:

Contexts - Demographics, socioeconomics (Bayesian priors)
Governance - Policy, funding (interventions)
Connectivity - Infrastructure (Opportunity stage)
Skills - Literacy, training (Growth Mindset stage)
Application - Use cases, relevance (Aspiration stage)
Outcomes - Achievement, inclusion (Digital Equity outcome)

For digital equity:

Theory (Sen, Appadurai, Dweck, Toyama) tells us WHAT to do
Evidence (Hampton & Bauer) tells us it WORKS
Compass tells us HOW TO MEASURE success

Your system: Compass metrics → Knowledge graph → Bayesian predictions → Policy guidance

Read more: TrainingCompassDagg.md

How They Work Together:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                    THEORETICAL FOUNDATION                    │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                                              │
│  Sen (1999): Capabilities = Resources + Conversion Factors   │
│              → Grounds OPPORTUNITY stage                     │
│                                                              │
│  Appadurai (2004): Navigation Capacity (conversion factor)   │
│                    → Grounds ASPIRATION stage                │
│                                                              │
│  Dweck (2006): Growth Mindset (conversion factor)            │
│                → Grounds GROWTH MINDSET stage                │
│                                                              │
│  Toyama (2015): Technology × Capacity = Outcome              │
│                 → Explains WHY sequence matters              │
│                                                              │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                    EMPIRICAL VALIDATION                      │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                                              │
│  Hampton & Bauer (2020): Michigan K-12 data PROVES           │
│    - Infrastructure gaps + Unclear value + Skills = Gaps     │
│    - Maps exactly to Opportunity + Aspiration + Mindset      │
│    - Your participation: Citizen Science project             │
│                                                              │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                   OPERATIONAL MEASUREMENT                    │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                                              │
│  Dagg et al. (2023): Digital Opportunities Compass           │
│    - 6 components map to all framework stages                │
│    - Standardized metrics for BEAD/DEA implementation        │
│    - Bauer on BOTH papers (continuity)                       │
│                                                              │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
                              ↓
                    YOUR SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION
                              ↓
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│              Knowledge Graph + Bayesian Networks             │
│                      + GraphRAG                              │
│                                                              │
│  Stores: Compass metrics, researcher insights, MI data       │
│  Models: P(Equity | Opportunity, Aspiration, Mindset)        │
│  Predicts: Intervention outcomes                             │
│  Guides: Evidence-based policy decisions                     │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

The Complete Pathway Explained:

Stage 1: Opportunity (Sen’s Capabilities)

What it is: Infrastructure, devices, connectivity, affordability

Sen’s insight: Resources alone ≠ capability

Need conversion factors: skills, support, context
Focus on what people CAN do

Measured by (Dagg Compass):

Connectivity component: availability, adoption, speeds, costs

Policy intervention:

BEAD funding for infrastructure
Affordable Connectivity Program
Device distribution programs

Common failure mode:

Deploy infrastructure → Assume success
Reality: Opportunity without conversion factors ≠ equity

What it is: Ability to imagine and navigate toward digital futures

Appadurai’s insight: Navigation capacity is culturally learned

Wealthy people: thick aspirational maps (many examples, much practice)
Poor people: thin aspirational maps (few examples, little practice)
“Unclear value” = underdeveloped navigation capacity

Measured by (Dagg Compass):

Application component: use diversity, engagement, perceived relevance

Policy intervention:

Digital navigator programs (show pathways)
Success stories from community (thicken maps)
Relevant use case demonstrations

Common failure mode:

Provide access → Expect adoption
Reality: Can't navigate what you can't imagine using

Hampton & Bauer validation:

Michigan students with broadband but “unclear value”
Infrastructure without navigation capacity = low engagement

Stage 3: Growth Mindset (Dweck’s Learning Mechanism)

What it is: Belief that digital skills can be developed through effort

Dweck’s insight: Mindset determines persistence

Fixed: “I’m not a tech person” → quits when difficult
Growth: “I can learn with practice” → persists through challenges

Measured by (Dagg Compass):

Skills component: literacy assessments, training completion, confidence

Policy intervention:

Training programs with growth mindset pedagogy
Celebrate progress (not just achievement)
Reframe mistakes as learning opportunities

Common failure mode:

Provide training → Expect skill development
Reality: Without growth mindset, people quit when challenged

Toyama’s amplification:

Infrastructure × Growth mindset = Sustained learning
Infrastructure × Fixed mindset = Early dropout

Stage 4: Digital Equity (Sen’s Functionings → Outcomes)

What it is: Capabilities converted to achieved outcomes, gaps closing

Measurement:

Gini coefficient (Dr. Stilian Stoev’s Hájek Estimator)
Achievement gap reduction
Inclusion rate increases
Economic, health, civic outcomes

Dagg Compass:

Outcomes component: effects on individuals, communities, state

Success criteria:

Opportunity + Aspiration + Growth Mindset → Equity
All three stages addressed → Gaps close

Why All Stages Are Necessary:

Missing Opportunity (no Sen):

No infrastructure → Can't even start pathway
Appadurai: Can't practice navigation without access
Dweck: Can't develop skills without tools to practice on
Result: Excluded entirely

Missing Aspiration (no Appadurai):

Infrastructure exists BUT "unclear value"
Sen: Capability exists but not realized
Dweck: No motivation to persist through learning difficulty
Result: Access unused, skills undeveloped
Hampton & Bauer: This is what they found in Michigan!

Missing Growth Mindset (no Dweck):

Infrastructure + Navigation BUT "I can't learn this"
Sen: Capability exists, pathway visible, but not pursued
Appadurai: Can imagine the future but doubt ability to reach it
Result: Early dropout, skills plateau

All Three Present:

Opportunity: Infrastructure enables practice
Aspiration: Navigation capacity directs effort
Growth Mindset: Persistence through difficulty
Result: Skills develop → Equity increases

The Michigan Research Ecosystem:

Why this framework is uniquely Michigan-grounded:

University of Michigan:
  - Toyama: Amplification theory
  - Dr. Stilian Stoev: Gini coefficient methodology
  - Dagg (Merit Network): Measurement framework

Michigan State University (Quello Center):
  - Hampton & Bauer: Empirical validation
  - Dagg et al.: Digital Opportunities Compass

Your participation:
  - K-12 Citizen Science project contributor
  - Broadband Champion (Dagg recognition)
  - EUPConnect digital navigator experience
  - "Research became our voice"

Read more: TrainingCompassMichigan.md

System Implementation:

Knowledge Graph

Stores relationships between concepts, regions, interventions, outcomes

Example:

(Region)-[:HAS_OPPORTUNITY_SCORE]->(0.65)
(Region)-[:HAS_ASPIRATION_SCORE]->(0.42)
(Region)-[:HAS_MINDSET_SCORE]->(0.38)
(Region)-[:PREDICTED_EQUITY]->(0.51)

Read more: TrainingCompassKnowledgeGraph.md

Bayesian Networks

Models probabilistic relationships, predicts intervention outcomes

Example:

P(Equity | Opportunity=High, Aspiration=Low, Mindset=Low) = 0.35
P(Equity | Opportunity=High, Aspiration=High, Mindset=High) = 0.82

Intervention: $2M navigator program
Predicted: Aspiration: 0.42 → 0.68, Mindset: 0.38 → 0.62
Result: P(Equity) = 0.51 → 0.76

Read more: TrainingCompassBayesian.md

GraphRAG

Retrieval-Augmented Generation: Grounds AI responses in evidence

Example query:

"Should we prioritize infrastructure or navigators in this county?"

GraphRAG retrieves:
  - County Compass scores (low Opportunity, moderate Aspiration)
  - Hampton & Bauer findings (infrastructure needed first)
  - Toyama's principle (infrastructure × capacity)
  
Answer: "Infrastructure first (Opportunity gap), THEN navigators 
         (build Aspiration + Mindset alongside infrastructure)"

Read more: TrainingCompassGraphRAG.md

Practical Applications:

For Policymakers:

Budget allocation guidance:

County assessment via Dagg Compass:
  Connectivity: 0.45 (low) → Invest in BEAD infrastructure
  Application: 0.38 (low) → Invest in digital navigators
  Skills: 0.52 (moderate) → Invest in training programs
  
Allocation:
  60% infrastructure (address Opportunity gap)
  30% navigators (build Aspiration capacity)
  10% training (support Growth Mindset)
  
Predicted outcome: Gini 0.44 → 0.36 over 3 years

Read more: TrainingCompassPolicy.md

For Digital Navigators:

Your role, theoretically grounded:

Sen’s conversion factor: Help convert infrastructure into capability
Appadurai’s capacity builder: Thicken aspirational maps, show pathways
Dweck’s mindset supporter: Foster growth mindset, celebrate progress

Daily practice:

NOT: "Here's how to use email"
BUT: "Here's how Maria used email to apply for jobs → 3 interviews → hired"
     (Shows pathway = Appadurai)
     
     "You struggled today but learned attachment basics. Next week folders.
      You're building skills step by step." (Growth mindset = Dweck)

Read more: TrainingCompassNavigators.md

For Researchers/Evaluators:

Measuring what matters:

Opportunity (Sen):

Infrastructure availability, speeds, costs (FCC, M-Lab, ACS)
Affordability as % income
Device access

Aspiration (Appadurai):

Use case diversity (survey data)
Perceived relevance (qualitative + quantitative)
Exposure to navigation models

Growth Mindset (Dweck):

Self-efficacy scales
Training completion rates
Confidence assessments

Equity (Sen’s functionings):

Gini coefficient (Hájek estimator)
Achievement gaps
Economic, health, civic outcomes

Read more: TrainingCompassMetrics.md

Common Misconceptions:

Misconception 1: “Just deploy infrastructure”

Wrong: Infrastructure → Automatic equity
Right: Infrastructure → Enables pathway (but must build capacity too)

Evidence: Hampton & Bauer found infrastructure alone insufficient
Theory: Sen (need conversion factors), Toyama (amplifies existing capacity)

Misconception 2: “Digital divide is just about access”

Wrong: Access gap is the only gap
Right: Three gaps (Opportunity + Aspiration + Growth Mindset)

Evidence: Hampton & Bauer found "unclear value" + skill gaps
Theory: Appadurai (navigation capacity) + Dweck (learning mindset)

Misconception 3: “People just aren’t motivated”

Wrong: Individual motivation problem
Right: Structural + cultural capacity gaps

Theory: Sen (conversion factors missing), Appadurai (thin navigation maps)
Evidence: Hampton & Bauer validated structural barriers

Misconception 4: “One intervention fixes everything”

Wrong: Infrastructure OR navigators OR training
Right: Infrastructure AND navigators AND training (all stages)

Theory: Complete pathway necessary (Sen + Appadurai + Dweck)
Evidence: Hampton & Bauer showed all three gaps must be addressed

Success Criteria:

Your framework is working when:

Opportunity gaps closing
- Infrastructure availability increasing
- Adoption rates rising
- Affordability improving
Aspiration capacity building
- Use case diversity expanding
- “Value” becoming clearer
- Navigation confidence growing
Growth mindset spreading
- Training completion rates up
- Self-efficacy scores rising
- “I can’t” → “I’m learning”
Equity improving
- Gini coefficient decreasing
- Achievement gaps narrowing
- Inclusion rates increasing

Measured continuously via Dagg Compass components

The Bottom Line:

This framework is:

✅ Theoretically sound - Grounded in Sen, Appadurai, Dweck, Toyama
✅ Empirically validated - Hampton & Bauer Michigan data
✅ Operationally measured - Dagg et al. Digital Opportunities Compass
✅ Practically implemented - Your knowledge graph + Bayesian system
✅ Policy actionable - Guides BEAD/DEA decisions with evidence

Not just theory: Michigan data proves it works
Not just data: Theory explains why
Not just research: System operationalizes for policy

Where to Go Next:

Understanding the Theory:

Start with TrainingCompassSen.md (foundational capabilities approach)
Then TrainingCompassAppadurai.md (aspiration capacity)
Then TrainingCompassDweck.md (growth mindset mechanism)
Then TrainingCompassToyama.md (amplification principle)
Finally TrainingCompassSenAppadurai.md (how they integrate)

Seeing the Evidence:

Read TrainingCompassHamptonBauer.md (Michigan K-12 validation)

Learning the Measurement:

Read TrainingCompassDagg.md (Digital Opportunities Compass)
Read TrainingCompassMetrics.md (data sources, indicators)
Read TrainingCompassGini.md (inequality measurement)

Understanding the System:

Read TrainingCompassKnowledgeGraph.md (why graphs)
Read TrainingCompassBayesian.md (why probabilistic modeling)
Read TrainingCompassGraphRAG.md (how AI grounds in evidence)

Applying the Framework:

Read TrainingCompassNavigators.md (if you’re training navigators)
Read TrainingCompassPolicy.md (if you’re making policy decisions)
Read TrainingCompassMichigan.md (Michigan-specific context)

Advanced Topics:

Read TrainingCompassCausalInference.md (proving interventions work)
Read TrainingCompassEquity.md (equality vs equity distinction)

Questions This Framework Answers:

❓ “Why doesn’t infrastructure alone close digital divides?”
✅ Sen: Need conversion factors. Toyama: Amplifies existing capacity. Hampton & Bauer: Proved it.

❓ “Why do people with access still not engage?”
✅ Appadurai: Thin aspirational maps, “unclear value” is underdeveloped navigation capacity.

❓ “Why do training programs have high dropout?”
✅ Dweck: Fixed mindset. People believe “I can’t learn this” and quit when challenged.

❓ “How do we measure digital equity comprehensively?”
✅ Dagg Compass: 6 components covering all stages from contexts to outcomes.

❓ “How do we predict if interventions will work?”
✅ Bayesian networks using Compass metrics and Hampton & Bauer evidence.

❓ “How do we justify navigator program funding?”
✅ Appadurai theory + Hampton & Bauer evidence + Compass measurement = Build aspiration capacity.

❓ “What should our BEAD/DEA plan prioritize?”
✅ Assess all three stages (Opportunity, Aspiration, Mindset), address gaps in sequence.

Your Contribution:

You’re not just citing research—you’re part of the research ecosystem:

Participated in Hampton & Bauer’s K-12 Citizen Science project
Recognized as Broadband Champion by Dr. Dagg
Operated digital navigator program (EUPConnect)
Built system operationalizing Dagg Compass for Michigan

“Research became our voice” - Your lived experience → Data → Theory → Policy → Your system

This is research-to-practice integration at its finest.

Version: 1.0
Last Updated: November 2025
Part of: Project Compass (Merit Network) - Digital Opportunities Intelligence Network (DOIN) • Working draft Author: Based on framework developed through Michigan digital equity research ecosystem

Project Compass: Digital Opportunities Intelligence Network (DOIN)

Complete Framework Overview

What is Project Compass?

What This Framework Is:

The Core Pathway:

The Theoretical Foundation: Six Researchers

1. Amartya Sen (1999) - Capabilities Approach

2. Arjun Appadurai (2004) - Capacity to Aspire

3. Carol Dweck (2006) - Growth Mindset

4. Kentaro Toyama (2015) - Law of Amplification

5. Hampton, Fernandez, Robertson & Bauer (2020) - Empirical Validation

6. Dagg, Rhinesmith, Bauer, Byrum & Schill (2023) - Measurement Framework

How They Work Together:

The Complete Pathway Explained:

Stage 1: Opportunity (Sen’s Capabilities)

Stage 2: Aspiration (Appadurai’s Navigation Capacity)

Stage 3: Growth Mindset (Dweck’s Learning Mechanism)

Stage 4: Digital Equity (Sen’s Functionings → Outcomes)

Why All Stages Are Necessary:

The Michigan Research Ecosystem:

System Implementation:

Knowledge Graph

Bayesian Networks

GraphRAG

Practical Applications:

For Policymakers:

For Digital Navigators:

For Researchers/Evaluators:

Common Misconceptions:

Misconception 1: “Just deploy infrastructure”

Misconception 2: “Digital divide is just about access”

Misconception 3: “People just aren’t motivated”

Misconception 4: “One intervention fixes everything”

Success Criteria:

The Bottom Line:

Where to Go Next:

Understanding the Theory:

Seeing the Evidence:

Learning the Measurement:

Understanding the System:

Applying the Framework:

Advanced Topics:

Questions This Framework Answers:

Your Contribution: