Round table: the future of ICT4D research
Tim Unwin, chairing the session, encourages the speakers to elaborate on the future (10 years ahead) of ICT4D research, what topics, fields, etc. should be on the table.
Erik Hersman, Ushahidi.
What is the point between tools and uses? Is Firefox or the Mozilla Foundation ICT4D too?
There is too much focus on the PC and not as much on mobile phones, which so far seem the ones that have made a deeper change in poorer communities.
Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications
ICT4D research is too much often disentangled from what practitioners are doing. And when it approaches the field, it is quite often “market analysis” for telecom companies rather than real research.
There is a strong need for deeper analysis and, especially, focus on policy, on strategy. more analytical thinking. And an analysis that is based on hard data that practitioners cannot usually extract and analyse.
Indeed, to reach policy makers, research should also be about blogging, about communicating, about reaching out.
Stop looking at the solution (e.g. mobiles for development) and look instead at the problems (e.g. lack of drinkable water).
Anita Gurumurthy, IT for Change
Many research is not related with the “community factor” of reality. Thus, it fails at linking the importance of the community with empowerment, solidarity, progress, development.
How we make sense of the models, the numbers, and translate them into real application at the political, democratic, macroeconomic level.
On the other hand, how do we train or engage practitioners in the academic dialogue, in the ethos of research.
Ken Banks, Kiwanja / FrontlineSMS
How do we measure and look up at data? What should we be looking for to measure impact?
We should make some research that lists the tools to do research and the tools to measure the impact of that research. There also is a need for an organized directory of Who works on ICT4D, where, how. And, a list of projects and their impacts.
Indrajit Banerjee, Information Society Division, UNESCO
We spend too many time isolating the “ICT factor” of projects that work. We should shift the focus to what is the context where these ICTs worked, because that might be the actual success factor.
On the other hand, academics should cluster together and create bigger research groups that somehow stepping out of the structures of Academia. Academics cannot be just reporting on the work that practitioners are doing; they’re behind the curve, amateur journalists, if that is all they do.
Discussion
Q: What happens with ICT governance? Anita Gurumurthy: Definitely the UN should be having a word on that.
Q: What should the role be of local communities in ICT4D? Ken Banks: local communities should be the ones leading the implementation of projects and solutions. Erik Hersman: Indeed, there are many innovations that rise amongst local communities.
Q: We need all components: practitioners, academics, different disciplines and approaches…
Q: There should be bridges between academics and practitioners. The former should be more aware of what happens down on the terrain; the latter should be more knowledgeable about methodology, impact assessment, etc.
Q: There is a big issue in ICT4D concerning non-accessibility for disabled people, including illiterate people that never went to school. The accessibility factor should be urgently addressed in ICT4D research agenda.
Information and Communication Technologies and Development (2010)
If you need to cite this article in a formal way (i.e. for bibliographical purposes) I dare suggest:
Peña-López, I. (2010) “ICTD2010 (I). Round table: the future of ICT4D research” In ICTlogy,
#87, December 2010. Barcelona: ICTlogy.
Retrieved month dd, yyyy from
https://ictlogy.net/review/?p=3637
Previous post: Posters a the International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development — ICTD2010
4 Comments to “ICTD2010 (I). Round table: the future of ICT4D research” »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
TrackBack URI
Sorry for spamming your comment space, but I am really interested in the questions of governance. So, if possible, it would be great to have more info on what went into the discussion of: “What happens with ICT governance?”
Thank you!
No worries: that’s what comments are for :)
The commenter of the session stated that globalization had pushed up the power spheres and that decisions were taken above governments.
Provided that ICTs are crucial for development, only freely and democratically managed infrastructures could guarantee that those were used for developmental issues (vs. purely economic/profit ones).
Thus, ICT governance should be also pushed up to a higher power sphere, i.e. the United Nations System.
Interesting. Especially in light of the fact that the UN system is frequently associated with governments when it comes to decision-making (as opposed to other ‘multistakeholder’ environments). There is an ongoing debate right now around the UNCSTD decision to appoint a government-only committee to recommend improvements to the IGF (http://bit.ly/eHruU1). I wonder if this is the kind of ICT governance issues the commenter referred to.
And again, thank you!
There was no time to elaborate the proposal on the UN taking up the government of the Internet. But yes, the IGF proposal (thanks for the link, indeed) might be one possible option.