One of the strongholds of ICT for development (las week's topic) is their introduction into rural areas. The belief is that ICT has the power to improve living conditions in rural areas and that, given their special context (being far from urban centers and having low or no access to infrastructure), they should have high priority in terms of digital inclusion.
As an example, we discussed Mathur and Ambani's paper on the opportunities for growth that ICT has shown or has promised in rural India. The main barriers that must be brought down, they say, are: costs, illiteracy and lack of awareness. This is critical in a country like India where (in 2005) 66% of the population is rural, which creates a strong digital divide (while millions of Indians have Internet access, millions more do not even have electricity). Given India's compromise with becoming an important global player in the ICT (especially the software) industry, an interesting aspect has been a transition from adapting foreign ICT to developing indigenous ICT solutions for rural areas. Some of the examples that the paper covers are:
- the Simputer: essentially an Internet accessing device offered at USD 200. Sadly, or perhaps, predictably, the Simputer is no longer in production. At the time it was being developed several countries or institutions had in mind a USD 100 computer to give many more people access to the Internet (and other applications) but given the dynamic and quick obsolescence of technology, none of these efforts were really successful and the advent of Internet-capable mobile phones made them less appealing and even less powerful comparatively.
-e-Choupal: an inititative from ITC India which sets up access points for farmers to access weather reports, market prices, and farming practices, among others, in Hindi. While e-Choupal is still working, a recent study by Dangi & Singh (2010, AJEBA, Vol. 2, No. 2) claims that the effect has not been holistic, since it has not included social, cultural or ecological issues. Moreover, while ITC itself has benefited, together with most farmers using e-Choupal, it has actually been harmful for those farmers not using it, bringing into question the development goals themselves and potentially furthering the digital divide they aim to close.
In any case, through these and other examples, the authors claim that ICT can empower farmers to compete in a globalized economy, by giving them access to key (mostly market) information which enables them to follow best practices, determine prices, take part in supply chains without being subject to wholesalers or truckers, and create farming enterprises. But for this to work, they suggest a contextual approach, involving not just the technology but also government initiatives and strategy, development organizations (NGOs, donors, etc.), the private sector (to strengthen the financial sustainability of each project) and individual entrepreneurs in rural communities, which become the actual leaders and promoters of projects at the local level.
A more critical account of ICT for rural areas is given in a Grimes paper from 2000. Though in this early stage of Internet adoption options were still wide open, Grimes had already encountered an important shift from optimism to pessimism, given the lack of context in existing (and mostly failed) projects. For starters, while ICT can indeed be an opportunity for local farmers and cooperatives to access market information and shorten their "distance" to global markets (buyers, providers, farming practices, etc.), it is also the case that this access (as all communication) is in two ways and the globalized market also gains access to these local rural communities, not always in their benefit. This may, of course, be said in general of accessing globalized markets, while they enable access to foreign or distant markets, they also open the door for the influx of products and services from those same locations or others, which may hinder or eliminate local producers.
One of the main sources of failed initiatives, Grimes point out, has been an excessive emphasis on technology push, as opposed to demand pull. This is crucial in rural areas where users are, like we noted above, more illiterate, poorer and less aware of ICT and its potential. This creates a difficult situation, because in principle there would be little or no demand for ICT in this context and hence when presented with donations or government initiatives, local authorities, NGOs or in general groups wanting to introduce ICT to rural areas find it very hard not to fall into the temptation of making the investment and installing the ICT artifacts only to find out months or years later that they are not sustainable (funding always runs out without a sound financial structure or business plan) or simply not used. Telecenters are a clear example of this. While they are aimed at providing all ICT access in a single point, closer to the rural population, very often they become simply Internet Cafe's where people are taught how to access the Internet and how to use Word and Excel, which rarely contributes to true development of the community (despite having obvious benefits for some individual users, such as students) and seldom find financial sustainability, since people are not really in the position to pay for the access or the training offered initially for free. Grimes then suggests that besides the initial investments in infrastructure, all projects should take into consideration further transitions into development of locally useful services, on to building awareness, then to promoting adoption, then to achieving effective usage and ultimately generating competitive advantage. This means moving away from the problems that we have studied earlier in the course: first, assuming a "technological determinism" position (one which assumes that plugging-in ICT artifacts has deterministic and positive impacts); second, ignoring or not adequately taking into consideration the context in which the ICT is to be deployed. Quick fixes almost always lead to wasted investments, and yet they are still broadly present in (especially rural) ICT development plans of many countries, including Colombia.
In order for ICT to really have the power to change rural communities for the better, the potential risks or dangers should also be considered and the human dimension should be given prevalence. ICT should be placed, studied and designed in collaboration and in context (local community, providers, investors, donors, social workers, government authorities, universities) and training should go beyond the tools to cater to the real business and empowerment opportunities offered by ICT in the local context. This means that training should go beyond explaining the parts of a computer and the interaction with popular software or Internet services and include functional literacy improvement in information.processing, electronic participation and democracy, privacy and security, content generation, entrepreneurship, marketing, and finance, among others.
miércoles, 30 de marzo de 2011
miércoles, 23 de marzo de 2011
Information systems in developing countires (Mar. 22)
Having covered the role of social and community informatics, we slightly shifted our focus this week towards developing countries in particular. The basic idea is the same: how to leverage ICT (information systems) to benefit a particular community. The change lies in the context of such communities, which in this case refers to developing countries or regions. Our first task then was to try to grasp the meaning of what a developing country is. Since development is by definition a progressive activity or movement, one could argue that all countries are developing in some sense, so this leads us to considering "developing" as coupled to a standard or desired state. In other words, developing means progressing towards the standard of development possessed by "developed" countries. The problem is that there is no such standard. We have mentioned Amartya Sen before, whose work puts the very notion of development into question. And going beyond the Nobel Laureates into the "alternative Nobel" (poor choice of label, by the way) Laureates, or Right Livelihood Awards, we can also mention Manfred Max-Neef's "human-scale development" which was designed specifically for Latin America and places the emphasis on people, not on objects as the units of development. As with Sen, the assumption that increased resources (such as GDP, sanitation or literacy) are indicative of development is criticized, because such resources do not automatically translate into increased quality of life for individuals, families and communities. Max-Neef explicitly includes dimensions such as freedom, protection, affection and understanding: human, rather than economic qualities.
Such a multidisciplinary and human-centered view of development is connected to another problem of classic understandings of development. Typically, development is attached to countries or regions, as when we say "Norway is a developed country". However, it is not always possible or desirable to make such generalizations, especially for "developing" regions. If we take Colombia as an example, we find that it is already ranked by the UNDP as a country with "High Human Development" (using 2010 statistics). This should mean that we are developing with respect to countries with Very High Human Development (e.g. Norway, Australia, New Zealand, USA...), but it also implies that we are developed with respect to countries with Medium (e.g. China, El Salvador, Sri Lanka...) or Low Human Development (e.g. Kenya, Bangladesh, Ghana...). Oversimplifying development like this completely hides the complex and unequal nature of development. Bogota is far more developed than Quibdó (a city in one of Colombia's poorest regions). In Bogotá, the northern part of the city is more developed than the south of the city. But it is also the case that even within a single neighborhood you can find a high standard of living comparable to that in developed countries side-by-side with slums with extreme poverty and basic necessities unfulfilled. You could say the same of China: while it is ranked as less developed than Colombia by the UNDP, its major cities far surpass most of Colombia's cities in terms of infrastructure, transportation or economic growth. And you could also say the same about developed countries: the US is increasingly showing neighborhoods or cities where poverty and unemployment are on par with some of the poorest countries in the world. In sum, "development" faces the same challenges we have seen when studying the digital divide: an overemphasis on material or economic indicators and an oversimplified resulting categorization.
Nonetheless, the broad and simplistic label of "developing" countries or regions has still been widely used within the information systems discipline as a way to study the implications of IS innovations in a context that is different from that in which most IS innovations have originally been created. In a 2008 paper, Chrisanthi Avgerou (working out of the LSE, as Walsham, whom we have already read) provides a critical review of the work that has been published in this domain. She classifies the contributions in terms of the discourse in which they most likely fit and which reflects a particular understanding of innovation and of information systems. The following figure presents a map summarizing Avgerou's review (click on the image for a full-sized view).
In class we used this map as an analytical tool to classify another paper presenting the case for ICT in developing regions (Brewer et al., 2005). In this IEEE Computer paper a series of ICT initiatives are presented for the reader to be convinced of the role of ICT in development (specifically referring to the UN Millennium Development Goals). The authors "travel the globe" presenting evidence of successful (?) ICT innovations in developing countries in the areas of healthcare, education, disaster management, e-government and economic efficiency, pointing out some of the challenges and future directions for further initiatives to be designed and adopted. The task was to attempt to classify this overview as either centered on a diffusion, socially-embedded or transformative discourse (as per Avgerou's proposal). The idea is not so much to question the authors' intentions (indeed it is possible that they exhibit traits of more than one discourse) but rather to be critical with respect to the assumptions behind the role that ICT has for development (as we have previously suggested in our discussions of the information /network society and the digital divide). The aim is to prevent us from becoming "victims" of our own discourse, which may happen if we uncritically and perhaps unconsciously adopt a specific view that may imply several ethical, philosophical and social worldviews. This risk, by the way, is pervasive in all design and engineering activities; hence the point of our course on ICT and Society. Each group is asked to post their analysis as a reply to this entry.
Such a multidisciplinary and human-centered view of development is connected to another problem of classic understandings of development. Typically, development is attached to countries or regions, as when we say "Norway is a developed country". However, it is not always possible or desirable to make such generalizations, especially for "developing" regions. If we take Colombia as an example, we find that it is already ranked by the UNDP as a country with "High Human Development" (using 2010 statistics). This should mean that we are developing with respect to countries with Very High Human Development (e.g. Norway, Australia, New Zealand, USA...), but it also implies that we are developed with respect to countries with Medium (e.g. China, El Salvador, Sri Lanka...) or Low Human Development (e.g. Kenya, Bangladesh, Ghana...). Oversimplifying development like this completely hides the complex and unequal nature of development. Bogota is far more developed than Quibdó (a city in one of Colombia's poorest regions). In Bogotá, the northern part of the city is more developed than the south of the city. But it is also the case that even within a single neighborhood you can find a high standard of living comparable to that in developed countries side-by-side with slums with extreme poverty and basic necessities unfulfilled. You could say the same of China: while it is ranked as less developed than Colombia by the UNDP, its major cities far surpass most of Colombia's cities in terms of infrastructure, transportation or economic growth. And you could also say the same about developed countries: the US is increasingly showing neighborhoods or cities where poverty and unemployment are on par with some of the poorest countries in the world. In sum, "development" faces the same challenges we have seen when studying the digital divide: an overemphasis on material or economic indicators and an oversimplified resulting categorization.
Nonetheless, the broad and simplistic label of "developing" countries or regions has still been widely used within the information systems discipline as a way to study the implications of IS innovations in a context that is different from that in which most IS innovations have originally been created. In a 2008 paper, Chrisanthi Avgerou (working out of the LSE, as Walsham, whom we have already read) provides a critical review of the work that has been published in this domain. She classifies the contributions in terms of the discourse in which they most likely fit and which reflects a particular understanding of innovation and of information systems. The following figure presents a map summarizing Avgerou's review (click on the image for a full-sized view).
In class we used this map as an analytical tool to classify another paper presenting the case for ICT in developing regions (Brewer et al., 2005). In this IEEE Computer paper a series of ICT initiatives are presented for the reader to be convinced of the role of ICT in development (specifically referring to the UN Millennium Development Goals). The authors "travel the globe" presenting evidence of successful (?) ICT innovations in developing countries in the areas of healthcare, education, disaster management, e-government and economic efficiency, pointing out some of the challenges and future directions for further initiatives to be designed and adopted. The task was to attempt to classify this overview as either centered on a diffusion, socially-embedded or transformative discourse (as per Avgerou's proposal). The idea is not so much to question the authors' intentions (indeed it is possible that they exhibit traits of more than one discourse) but rather to be critical with respect to the assumptions behind the role that ICT has for development (as we have previously suggested in our discussions of the information /network society and the digital divide). The aim is to prevent us from becoming "victims" of our own discourse, which may happen if we uncritically and perhaps unconsciously adopt a specific view that may imply several ethical, philosophical and social worldviews. This risk, by the way, is pervasive in all design and engineering activities; hence the point of our course on ICT and Society. Each group is asked to post their analysis as a reply to this entry.
martes, 15 de marzo de 2011
Community and Social Informatics (Mar. 15)
We have covered the background of what ICT is, what its relationship to society entails and what the consequences might be if a digital divide is present. We moved to the positive or proactive stage when we framed this within digital inclusion, but it still remains mostly conceptual in order to raise awareness of the issues and of the complex relationship between ICT and society, taking into account its diversity. We now need to focus on opportunities for ICT to benefit society and methods to make it happen.Community informatics and social informatics have been around for a while as a way to frame these opportunities and make sense of how to go about developing systems that are truly aimed at improving people's lives.
Social informatics (pioneered and led by Rob Kling) is the "interdisciplinary study of the design, uses and consequences of information technologies that takes into account their interaction with institutional and cultural contexts" (Kling, 2007, originally published in 1999). In order to present his case, Kling starts by focusing on uncritical positive views of technology as exhibited by the "IT pundits". These are people who see technology through successful exemplars and then make the case that this means that IT should imply profound (and positive) social change. Usually, their assertions are bold, their data is cherry picked and their analysis is not systematic or in-depth. Of course, IT pundits are not researchers, they are simply opinionated writers that produce interesting "sound bites" for magazines or blogs. Kling then moves on to discuss the "IT productivity paradox", which questions the very assumption on which most IT (at least in business) is built: that it leads to increased productivity. Back in the late 80s the Nobel Laureate Robert Solow questioned this assumption, triggering a widespread discussion on the actual returns of IT investment. This paradox has not completely left us; in 2003 Nicholas Carr, as editor of the Harvard Business Review published an essay reviving this paradox and telling us that "IT Doesn't Matter". In his view, IT does not provide any competitive advantage and has becomes an infrastructure commodity (like electricity) which is a must-have but not a strategic asset, and he went as far as suggesting that IT investments should be cut down and that management should focus on the risks, rather than on the opportunities brought on by ICT. Some have questioned this negative view either by suggesting that it is a problem in measurement (we don't know how to measure ICT's indirect benefits) or a shortsighted view of ICT (while some is indeed common infrastructure, some other is more strategic and unique). Kling, for his part, suggested that the problem was neglecting the social explanations behind ICT success or failure. Building on top of the socio-technical tradition (the same from which Orlikowski's understanding f ICT comes from) the idea was to shift the emphasis on technological determinism ("I plug in system X and I should obtain benefit Y") towards an emphasis on contextual inquiry. For example, the success of a system may be linked to occupational power or to incentive structures in the organization (not to the ICT alone). There are no fixed effects of technology: the same tool may be useful and successful in one organization (or user group) and a failure in another (for example, when he describes the use of Lotus Notes in PriceWaterHouse as opposed to Ernst & Young, a case used by Orlikowski too in developing her theory many years ago). This focus on social context and work practices as critical for the understanding and assessment of ICT was then labeled under "social informatics" by Kling and others. The idea was to produce a broad body of knowledge based on empirical (and typically qualitative and in-depth) research in order to contribute concepts to help in designing, using and configuring ICT systems. It is interesting to note that the two journals he uses as example (same IT infrastructure but different level of success based on work practices - e.g. the review process - rather than on technology) are both extinct now, meaning that even with a contextualized understanding of ICT, success is not guaranteed in the long run. It should also be noted that social informatics received some criticism and did not pick up as fast or spread as wide as Kling intended, perhaps due to a counter-movement against critical theory and its associated disciplines (cf. Latour, 2004 "Why Has Critique Run out of Steam?", Critical Inquiry, 30: 225-248).
Community informatics is a closely related field (maybe contained within social informatics) with perhaps a more applied perspective. It is defined by Gurstein as a field of interdisciplinary scholarship and practice devoted to enabling communities with ICT. Thus, the emphasis is placed explicitly and emphatically on the benefits of ICT for particular communities. Indeed, the community, not the ICT, is the unit of analysis (Bishop and Bruce, 2005). Carroll et al. (2009) give an account of several research projects aimed precisely at enabling (scientific, emergency response, and student) communities through ICT. Their re-hashing of finished or ongoing projects is aimed at revising the notion of design as problem-solving. Roughly speaking, while "design-as-problem solving" (based on Herb Simon's tradition) is backwards looking given that it is aimed at satisficing solutions to given requirements through selection, "design-as-possibility" is oriented towards creative new possibilities through exploration. To illustrate this, they take collaboration technologies: on one hand, they may use face-to-face communication as the "gold standard" which ICT should aim at emulating; on the other hand, the may be built to go "beyond awareness" and provide mechanisms that improve on face-to-face interaction. Going beyond awareness means finding uses for ICT that support different stages of "activity awareness" starting by a shared common ground, going into communities of practice, then on to social capital generation and finally for human development (individual and group capabilities). For example: social bookmarking may be used to build on existing common ground in scientific collaboration; case studies and role playing may be used to emulate communities of practice in a university course; social capital may be improved around improvisation in emergency response by allowing annotations of rationale (logic of reasoning behind decision-making) in shared GIS-based maps; and human development may be improved in the same university course by allowing students to document their projects in the same space which they use to find their cases.
In sum, both community and social informatics focus on the relationship between ICT and society, and integrate this understanding in their methods of inquiry and design. As we have said before, this means using participatory approaches, looking creatively at the uses of ICT, and recognizing that these are shaped through their interaction within a specific context of use. For our course, it is expected that each group use these ideas in trying to find new ways to interpret, design and use ICT in their specific case settings. Also, since we are using design science research to guide our projects, then it is advisable to look at design from a more positive perspective (design-as-possibility), while at the same time, tempering creative ideas by also looking at design from a problem-solving point of view in order to consider real-world possibilities and restrictions and avoiding disappointments - beware of the IT paradox...
Social informatics (pioneered and led by Rob Kling) is the "interdisciplinary study of the design, uses and consequences of information technologies that takes into account their interaction with institutional and cultural contexts" (Kling, 2007, originally published in 1999). In order to present his case, Kling starts by focusing on uncritical positive views of technology as exhibited by the "IT pundits". These are people who see technology through successful exemplars and then make the case that this means that IT should imply profound (and positive) social change. Usually, their assertions are bold, their data is cherry picked and their analysis is not systematic or in-depth. Of course, IT pundits are not researchers, they are simply opinionated writers that produce interesting "sound bites" for magazines or blogs. Kling then moves on to discuss the "IT productivity paradox", which questions the very assumption on which most IT (at least in business) is built: that it leads to increased productivity. Back in the late 80s the Nobel Laureate Robert Solow questioned this assumption, triggering a widespread discussion on the actual returns of IT investment. This paradox has not completely left us; in 2003 Nicholas Carr, as editor of the Harvard Business Review published an essay reviving this paradox and telling us that "IT Doesn't Matter". In his view, IT does not provide any competitive advantage and has becomes an infrastructure commodity (like electricity) which is a must-have but not a strategic asset, and he went as far as suggesting that IT investments should be cut down and that management should focus on the risks, rather than on the opportunities brought on by ICT. Some have questioned this negative view either by suggesting that it is a problem in measurement (we don't know how to measure ICT's indirect benefits) or a shortsighted view of ICT (while some is indeed common infrastructure, some other is more strategic and unique). Kling, for his part, suggested that the problem was neglecting the social explanations behind ICT success or failure. Building on top of the socio-technical tradition (the same from which Orlikowski's understanding f ICT comes from) the idea was to shift the emphasis on technological determinism ("I plug in system X and I should obtain benefit Y") towards an emphasis on contextual inquiry. For example, the success of a system may be linked to occupational power or to incentive structures in the organization (not to the ICT alone). There are no fixed effects of technology: the same tool may be useful and successful in one organization (or user group) and a failure in another (for example, when he describes the use of Lotus Notes in PriceWaterHouse as opposed to Ernst & Young, a case used by Orlikowski too in developing her theory many years ago). This focus on social context and work practices as critical for the understanding and assessment of ICT was then labeled under "social informatics" by Kling and others. The idea was to produce a broad body of knowledge based on empirical (and typically qualitative and in-depth) research in order to contribute concepts to help in designing, using and configuring ICT systems. It is interesting to note that the two journals he uses as example (same IT infrastructure but different level of success based on work practices - e.g. the review process - rather than on technology) are both extinct now, meaning that even with a contextualized understanding of ICT, success is not guaranteed in the long run. It should also be noted that social informatics received some criticism and did not pick up as fast or spread as wide as Kling intended, perhaps due to a counter-movement against critical theory and its associated disciplines (cf. Latour, 2004 "Why Has Critique Run out of Steam?", Critical Inquiry, 30: 225-248).
Community informatics is a closely related field (maybe contained within social informatics) with perhaps a more applied perspective. It is defined by Gurstein as a field of interdisciplinary scholarship and practice devoted to enabling communities with ICT. Thus, the emphasis is placed explicitly and emphatically on the benefits of ICT for particular communities. Indeed, the community, not the ICT, is the unit of analysis (Bishop and Bruce, 2005). Carroll et al. (2009) give an account of several research projects aimed precisely at enabling (scientific, emergency response, and student) communities through ICT. Their re-hashing of finished or ongoing projects is aimed at revising the notion of design as problem-solving. Roughly speaking, while "design-as-problem solving" (based on Herb Simon's tradition) is backwards looking given that it is aimed at satisficing solutions to given requirements through selection, "design-as-possibility" is oriented towards creative new possibilities through exploration. To illustrate this, they take collaboration technologies: on one hand, they may use face-to-face communication as the "gold standard" which ICT should aim at emulating; on the other hand, the may be built to go "beyond awareness" and provide mechanisms that improve on face-to-face interaction. Going beyond awareness means finding uses for ICT that support different stages of "activity awareness" starting by a shared common ground, going into communities of practice, then on to social capital generation and finally for human development (individual and group capabilities). For example: social bookmarking may be used to build on existing common ground in scientific collaboration; case studies and role playing may be used to emulate communities of practice in a university course; social capital may be improved around improvisation in emergency response by allowing annotations of rationale (logic of reasoning behind decision-making) in shared GIS-based maps; and human development may be improved in the same university course by allowing students to document their projects in the same space which they use to find their cases.
In sum, both community and social informatics focus on the relationship between ICT and society, and integrate this understanding in their methods of inquiry and design. As we have said before, this means using participatory approaches, looking creatively at the uses of ICT, and recognizing that these are shaped through their interaction within a specific context of use. For our course, it is expected that each group use these ideas in trying to find new ways to interpret, design and use ICT in their specific case settings. Also, since we are using design science research to guide our projects, then it is advisable to look at design from a more positive perspective (design-as-possibility), while at the same time, tempering creative ideas by also looking at design from a problem-solving point of view in order to consider real-world possibilities and restrictions and avoiding disappointments - beware of the IT paradox...
viernes, 11 de marzo de 2011
Digital inclusion (Mar. 8)
We have already established the complex and dynamic nature of the digital divide. It is more than access and it cannot be established as a binary attribute between countries or groups, since there are several dimensions which also create divides within countries and groups. But going further, we must question whether focusing on a digital divide is truly useful, not only due to the simplistic understanding of the divide, but also due to its negative connotation. We might use "digital inclusion" as a more appropriate notion or as the natural progression from diagnosis to action. Specifically, we can look at digital inclusion from the point of view of those that may potentially be excluded from any of the benefits of the knowledge-based network society. Four papers guide us by proposing particular conditions, risks and agendas in terms of senior citizens, gender issues, children and young people, and groups with special needs (people with disabilities).
From the point of view of gender, Caprile and Serrano start by pointing out that debates surrounding the benefits of the knowledge-based society (KBS) have concluded that there is no linear causality between technological development and social equality (or inequality); in other words, there is no guarantee that new ICT will increase or decrease social equality. What this suggests is that the belief in ICT as a source of social progress is perhaps little more than wishful thinking. Since their focus is on gender, they deconstruct the assumptions behind the belief that women will specifically benefit from the KBS. As it goes, the belief is that since women are closing the educational divide and even surpassing men in accessing higher education (in the EU), then they will come out as winners in the KBS. However, statistics show that there are still gaps in terms of payment (men still earn more than women), in terms of ICT usage (due to negative attitudes, a dominant masculine culture and communication styles), in terms of hi-tech employment (women are underrepresented in ICT-related occupations and virtually non-existing in executive positions due to a masculine culture and pre-existing expectations and stereotypes surrounding the ICT profession), and in terms of job requirements (hi-tech occupations undervalue the so-called 'feminine' skills). Furthermore, they highlight the fact that instead of resulting in more work flexibility, the KBS has actually worsened working conditions, including: information overload, workload, time-pressure, increased responsibility at lower levels, stress, and fuzziness in the barriers between work and private activities.This is especially detrimental to women, because while working conditions have worsened, it is also the case that on average there is imbalance between the domestic work done by women as opposed to men - in other words, women end up carrying a dual burden and get paid less for it. Thus, the authors propose a wider notion of inequality that can encompass educational equality together with employment equality, childcare equality and pay equality. This should help tackle the uneven progress in gender equality within the KBS. However, their view is still limited, because as we know it should also be part of an even wider approach that goes beyond employment - for instance, does their study really apply to women in the developing world? Moreover, Caprile and Serrano's account focuses on women vs. men, disregarding other social and cultural factors associated with gender in the KBS; for example, they do not consider the full spectrum of gender (the so-called LGTB community is not mentioned).
Moving on the children and youth, we find yet another assumption with respect to the digital divide: it is believed that since they are the "internet generation" then there will be no significant divide to speak of in their case. However, through a study done in the UK, Livingston and Helsper find that most frequent Internet use is present in boys and older teens, suggesting some form of a divide among children and youth. They also propose using a wider spectrum to uncover potential divides, by moving from access (or use) to different kinds of use. In doing so, they find that children go through four different steps of adoption and use: first; only for information seeking; second, for gaming and e-mail; third, for instant messaging and downloading music; and fourth, a broad use of the internet. They also uncover some aspects that may hinder the use of the internet: experience, frequency of use (use encourages more use), skills, and self-efficacy (confidence). An interesting finding that connects this paper to the last one is that when girls enter their teens, they experience a fall-off in use with respect to boys, suggesting the impact of the masculine dominated culture and pre-existing stereotypes.Despite their effort in considering this often neglected population group, there are some equally important issues surrounding youth in the knowledge-based network society that the authors do not discuss, especially regarding privacy and vulnerability.
Another age group, which constitutes a serious source of exclusion in the knowledge-based society, is made up of senior citizens. Mordinin et al. discuss their place in terms of digital inclusion (they say e-inclusion) from an ethical point of view. For them, e-inclusion is not just about access but rather a necessity for social justice and equity in the knowledge society. As such, they depart from the material access view, which they relate to a market-based ethics according to which e-inclusion should be a matter of contributing to the common wealth as well as receiving from it accordingly; in this view, inclusion is a matter of opening up the market to previously marginalized sectors. This is a limited and harmful view with respect to some senior citizens, because it assumes that only people who can produce or consume are worthy of being included. They follow this by discussing the changing view of old age itself. Though we are all aware that we live in an aging society (not just in the developed world), it is also the case, that age has gained a new meaning: in recent decades life expectancy and quality of life have improved bringing forth a new "middle age" which simply means that mental and physical abilities remain unaltered (though the person may be aging). For example, Jürgen Habermas is 81 and still lecturing strong, but the Brazilian architect Oscar Niemeyer is over 100 and still designing! So rather than artificially dividing population into numerical age groups, the strata should focus on other factors and should explicitly differentiate between the young-old and the oldest-old. For the young-old, e-inclusion goals should be aging well at work and aging well in the community; for the oldest-old, the goal is aging well at home. Ethically, inclusion (of the elderly) is a matter of justice (distributive, procedural, retributive and restorative justice) and of human rights (liberty, claim, participation and privacy rights). But inclusion shouldn't just be a passive attitude towards the potentially excluded, ICT also has a positive role in developing assistive and anti-aging technologies, so long as they guarantee participation and consent from those that should benefit from it.
Finally, Toboso's paper discusses the place of the special needs population (those with disabilities) within the knowledge-based network society. As with senior citizens, disability has also gone through changes in its perception. The so-called medical model of disability considers it as a disease that can be cured in order for the person to be normalized (rehabilitated) back into society. The social model of disability places the focus on society (not on the disabled individual) arguing that the limitations are societal and that its is society that must be 'normalized' in order to cater to the needs of all people. Toboso, however, proposes an alternative: the diversity model of disability, based on Amartya Sen's "capabilities and functionings approach". Sen's contribution, which earned him the Nobel Prize in Economics, shifts the view of human development from a traditional focus on GDP increase, towards what people are actually able to do or be (functionings) and the opportunities they have to freely choose and live the way they wish (capabilities). This is a meaningful shift, because additional resources do not automatically translate into a capability to function (especially, in this context, with regards to people with disability). In terms of ICT the emphasis also shifts from an instrumental view towards one that we already know: ICT as a human action system (ICT modifies human actions and human actions modify ICT). Toboso then proposes developing ICT through "design for all". As in Mordini et al. the idea is that new ICT should be designed through a participatory process and with the aim of making the ICT accessible for everyone. This is no easy task when we consider that persons with disability have different characteristics which sometimes conflict with each other (last week, for example, we looked at a system to help eduction of blind children by providing an auditory environment... this naturally would be of no help for a blind and deaf child). Moreover, we should consider the other user groups mentioned above. Accordingly, design for all should not (cannot) be aimed at designing normalized systems for a standard user (who does not exist), but rather focus on diversity, understanding it not as a barrier to ICT development, but as an opportunity for making it richer and more inclusive so that it can really deliver on its promise of cerating a knolwedge-based network society open for all.
The task this week is then to be inspired by these different population groups and recognize the open, complex, multifaceted and dynamic nature of the digital divide, or rather of digital inclusion, and propose your own version of a "Digital Inclusion Manifesto".
From the point of view of gender, Caprile and Serrano start by pointing out that debates surrounding the benefits of the knowledge-based society (KBS) have concluded that there is no linear causality between technological development and social equality (or inequality); in other words, there is no guarantee that new ICT will increase or decrease social equality. What this suggests is that the belief in ICT as a source of social progress is perhaps little more than wishful thinking. Since their focus is on gender, they deconstruct the assumptions behind the belief that women will specifically benefit from the KBS. As it goes, the belief is that since women are closing the educational divide and even surpassing men in accessing higher education (in the EU), then they will come out as winners in the KBS. However, statistics show that there are still gaps in terms of payment (men still earn more than women), in terms of ICT usage (due to negative attitudes, a dominant masculine culture and communication styles), in terms of hi-tech employment (women are underrepresented in ICT-related occupations and virtually non-existing in executive positions due to a masculine culture and pre-existing expectations and stereotypes surrounding the ICT profession), and in terms of job requirements (hi-tech occupations undervalue the so-called 'feminine' skills). Furthermore, they highlight the fact that instead of resulting in more work flexibility, the KBS has actually worsened working conditions, including: information overload, workload, time-pressure, increased responsibility at lower levels, stress, and fuzziness in the barriers between work and private activities.This is especially detrimental to women, because while working conditions have worsened, it is also the case that on average there is imbalance between the domestic work done by women as opposed to men - in other words, women end up carrying a dual burden and get paid less for it. Thus, the authors propose a wider notion of inequality that can encompass educational equality together with employment equality, childcare equality and pay equality. This should help tackle the uneven progress in gender equality within the KBS. However, their view is still limited, because as we know it should also be part of an even wider approach that goes beyond employment - for instance, does their study really apply to women in the developing world? Moreover, Caprile and Serrano's account focuses on women vs. men, disregarding other social and cultural factors associated with gender in the KBS; for example, they do not consider the full spectrum of gender (the so-called LGTB community is not mentioned).
Moving on the children and youth, we find yet another assumption with respect to the digital divide: it is believed that since they are the "internet generation" then there will be no significant divide to speak of in their case. However, through a study done in the UK, Livingston and Helsper find that most frequent Internet use is present in boys and older teens, suggesting some form of a divide among children and youth. They also propose using a wider spectrum to uncover potential divides, by moving from access (or use) to different kinds of use. In doing so, they find that children go through four different steps of adoption and use: first; only for information seeking; second, for gaming and e-mail; third, for instant messaging and downloading music; and fourth, a broad use of the internet. They also uncover some aspects that may hinder the use of the internet: experience, frequency of use (use encourages more use), skills, and self-efficacy (confidence). An interesting finding that connects this paper to the last one is that when girls enter their teens, they experience a fall-off in use with respect to boys, suggesting the impact of the masculine dominated culture and pre-existing stereotypes.Despite their effort in considering this often neglected population group, there are some equally important issues surrounding youth in the knowledge-based network society that the authors do not discuss, especially regarding privacy and vulnerability.
Another age group, which constitutes a serious source of exclusion in the knowledge-based society, is made up of senior citizens. Mordinin et al. discuss their place in terms of digital inclusion (they say e-inclusion) from an ethical point of view. For them, e-inclusion is not just about access but rather a necessity for social justice and equity in the knowledge society. As such, they depart from the material access view, which they relate to a market-based ethics according to which e-inclusion should be a matter of contributing to the common wealth as well as receiving from it accordingly; in this view, inclusion is a matter of opening up the market to previously marginalized sectors. This is a limited and harmful view with respect to some senior citizens, because it assumes that only people who can produce or consume are worthy of being included. They follow this by discussing the changing view of old age itself. Though we are all aware that we live in an aging society (not just in the developed world), it is also the case, that age has gained a new meaning: in recent decades life expectancy and quality of life have improved bringing forth a new "middle age" which simply means that mental and physical abilities remain unaltered (though the person may be aging). For example, Jürgen Habermas is 81 and still lecturing strong, but the Brazilian architect Oscar Niemeyer is over 100 and still designing! So rather than artificially dividing population into numerical age groups, the strata should focus on other factors and should explicitly differentiate between the young-old and the oldest-old. For the young-old, e-inclusion goals should be aging well at work and aging well in the community; for the oldest-old, the goal is aging well at home. Ethically, inclusion (of the elderly) is a matter of justice (distributive, procedural, retributive and restorative justice) and of human rights (liberty, claim, participation and privacy rights). But inclusion shouldn't just be a passive attitude towards the potentially excluded, ICT also has a positive role in developing assistive and anti-aging technologies, so long as they guarantee participation and consent from those that should benefit from it.
Finally, Toboso's paper discusses the place of the special needs population (those with disabilities) within the knowledge-based network society. As with senior citizens, disability has also gone through changes in its perception. The so-called medical model of disability considers it as a disease that can be cured in order for the person to be normalized (rehabilitated) back into society. The social model of disability places the focus on society (not on the disabled individual) arguing that the limitations are societal and that its is society that must be 'normalized' in order to cater to the needs of all people. Toboso, however, proposes an alternative: the diversity model of disability, based on Amartya Sen's "capabilities and functionings approach". Sen's contribution, which earned him the Nobel Prize in Economics, shifts the view of human development from a traditional focus on GDP increase, towards what people are actually able to do or be (functionings) and the opportunities they have to freely choose and live the way they wish (capabilities). This is a meaningful shift, because additional resources do not automatically translate into a capability to function (especially, in this context, with regards to people with disability). In terms of ICT the emphasis also shifts from an instrumental view towards one that we already know: ICT as a human action system (ICT modifies human actions and human actions modify ICT). Toboso then proposes developing ICT through "design for all". As in Mordini et al. the idea is that new ICT should be designed through a participatory process and with the aim of making the ICT accessible for everyone. This is no easy task when we consider that persons with disability have different characteristics which sometimes conflict with each other (last week, for example, we looked at a system to help eduction of blind children by providing an auditory environment... this naturally would be of no help for a blind and deaf child). Moreover, we should consider the other user groups mentioned above. Accordingly, design for all should not (cannot) be aimed at designing normalized systems for a standard user (who does not exist), but rather focus on diversity, understanding it not as a barrier to ICT development, but as an opportunity for making it richer and more inclusive so that it can really deliver on its promise of cerating a knolwedge-based network society open for all.
The task this week is then to be inspired by these different population groups and recognize the open, complex, multifaceted and dynamic nature of the digital divide, or rather of digital inclusion, and propose your own version of a "Digital Inclusion Manifesto".
miércoles, 2 de marzo de 2011
The digital divide (Mar. 1)
We've already seen in our previous material on the information, knowledge or network society that the "digital divide" is presented as one of the major risks or problems in this new form of society. Essentially, this divide refers to some part of the population being left out from this new societal structure, usually due to lack of access to ICT. In most cases, the digital divide is seen as a quantitative gap between those who have access to the (new) ICT and those who don't (for example, in Castells and in ECLAC). Others posit that the digital divide is a continuation, extension, symptom or even euphemism for what is actually a long-standing social divide between the haves and have-nots (as in ALAI).
If we go back to our initial understanding of ICT in practice then it becomes evident that emphasizing either the quantitative nature of the divide or the focus on the access to infrastructural or material elements is insufficient, especially given the fact that the ICT (re)shapes social structures and the social structures (re)shape ICT. Today we discussed the view of van Dijk and Hacker which explicitly address this issue by considering the digital divide as a "complex and dynamic phenomenon". To begin with, the complexity stems from different barriers to access, besides the material ones related to computers and network connections. These are: the mental access barrier, the digital skills access barrier and the usage access barriers. Mental barriers relate to lack of interest, computer anxiety or unattractiveness in the technological artifacts which lead to differences in elementary digital experience. Digital skill barriers are often caused by lack of user friendliness or insufficient education or social support surrounding ICT; an adequate level of these skills should enable the person to search, select, process and apply information in the context of superabundance (the Internet) and with a strategic aim (one that actually generates value or benefit). Usage access is limited by a difference in usage opportunities; this is often thought of as a matter of individual choice (some regard ICT as useful for entertainment, others for work, others for education, etc.) but the fact remains that these divergent uses crucially determine the value that ICT has for the individual and for society.
The dynamic aspects of van Dijk and Hacker's proposal is related firstly to the dynamics of technology itself. We have already discussed the major role that quick obsolescence has in understanding, using and measuring ICT (with a faster rate of obsolescence than any other previous technology). They stress that newer ICTs do not follow a normal S-curve of innovation because it is not the case that all ICTs become broadly adopted (some simply die out before being fully adopted) and because they become part of the configuration of existing technologies (on top of the computer go many different applications which replace, complement or alter the behavior of old ones, for example). The other important aspect of the dynamic nature of the digital divide is that it does not provide clear lines of separation, since it is present between countries, but also within countries and is dependent on many different contextual factors, such as gender, race, education level, income level and age.
In groups we discussed the implications of this framework in a specific case which narrates the story behind a successful case of "e-inclusion" in an article by Alfonso Molina. He also calls for a more "embracing approach" of the digital divide which goes well beyond the quantitative difference in access and which should lead to an "e-inclusion" movement. As an illustration he describes a successful effort in adapting ICT for the use of Chilean blind children, through which they are taught to structure their surrounding space out of an auditory representation, rather than the visual focus which is given in traditional settings. This should contribute to including a potentially excluded group by using one specific ICT application. He recognizes the fact that we have pointed out before: no one has complete control over the information society and any effort will appear like a drop of water in the ocean. Nonetheless, the hope behind an e-inclusion movement is that through increasing the sharing of those experiences, increasing awareness (of the potential exclusions) and taking advantage of the networked nature of the information society (cf. Castells), those efforts can be replicated or enhanced (faster than without ICT) into a global movement of inclusion. Within the groups we talked about specific opportunities to tackle the challenges involved in these kinds of projects: (1) the university offers a nurturing, albeit limited, environment given its societal role and its emphasis that goes beyond or besides profit; (2) "rich" countries are a good source of funding for these kinds of projects, especially if we can continue to push them towards fulfilling their compromise in setting aside resources to contribute to development in other less developed regions; (3) the increasing prevalence of social corporate responsibility is also a good source of support for these kinds of projects from companies that may be willing to invest in inclusion. In sum, anything that can be done (at different levels, places and for different purposes) should be done to turn the digital divide into a digital inclusion movement, which we will discuss in more detail next week..
If we go back to our initial understanding of ICT in practice then it becomes evident that emphasizing either the quantitative nature of the divide or the focus on the access to infrastructural or material elements is insufficient, especially given the fact that the ICT (re)shapes social structures and the social structures (re)shape ICT. Today we discussed the view of van Dijk and Hacker which explicitly address this issue by considering the digital divide as a "complex and dynamic phenomenon". To begin with, the complexity stems from different barriers to access, besides the material ones related to computers and network connections. These are: the mental access barrier, the digital skills access barrier and the usage access barriers. Mental barriers relate to lack of interest, computer anxiety or unattractiveness in the technological artifacts which lead to differences in elementary digital experience. Digital skill barriers are often caused by lack of user friendliness or insufficient education or social support surrounding ICT; an adequate level of these skills should enable the person to search, select, process and apply information in the context of superabundance (the Internet) and with a strategic aim (one that actually generates value or benefit). Usage access is limited by a difference in usage opportunities; this is often thought of as a matter of individual choice (some regard ICT as useful for entertainment, others for work, others for education, etc.) but the fact remains that these divergent uses crucially determine the value that ICT has for the individual and for society.
The dynamic aspects of van Dijk and Hacker's proposal is related firstly to the dynamics of technology itself. We have already discussed the major role that quick obsolescence has in understanding, using and measuring ICT (with a faster rate of obsolescence than any other previous technology). They stress that newer ICTs do not follow a normal S-curve of innovation because it is not the case that all ICTs become broadly adopted (some simply die out before being fully adopted) and because they become part of the configuration of existing technologies (on top of the computer go many different applications which replace, complement or alter the behavior of old ones, for example). The other important aspect of the dynamic nature of the digital divide is that it does not provide clear lines of separation, since it is present between countries, but also within countries and is dependent on many different contextual factors, such as gender, race, education level, income level and age.
In groups we discussed the implications of this framework in a specific case which narrates the story behind a successful case of "e-inclusion" in an article by Alfonso Molina. He also calls for a more "embracing approach" of the digital divide which goes well beyond the quantitative difference in access and which should lead to an "e-inclusion" movement. As an illustration he describes a successful effort in adapting ICT for the use of Chilean blind children, through which they are taught to structure their surrounding space out of an auditory representation, rather than the visual focus which is given in traditional settings. This should contribute to including a potentially excluded group by using one specific ICT application. He recognizes the fact that we have pointed out before: no one has complete control over the information society and any effort will appear like a drop of water in the ocean. Nonetheless, the hope behind an e-inclusion movement is that through increasing the sharing of those experiences, increasing awareness (of the potential exclusions) and taking advantage of the networked nature of the information society (cf. Castells), those efforts can be replicated or enhanced (faster than without ICT) into a global movement of inclusion. Within the groups we talked about specific opportunities to tackle the challenges involved in these kinds of projects: (1) the university offers a nurturing, albeit limited, environment given its societal role and its emphasis that goes beyond or besides profit; (2) "rich" countries are a good source of funding for these kinds of projects, especially if we can continue to push them towards fulfilling their compromise in setting aside resources to contribute to development in other less developed regions; (3) the increasing prevalence of social corporate responsibility is also a good source of support for these kinds of projects from companies that may be willing to invest in inclusion. In sum, anything that can be done (at different levels, places and for different purposes) should be done to turn the digital divide into a digital inclusion movement, which we will discuss in more detail next week..
Suscribirse a:
Comentarios (Atom)