ICTlogy

That someone with Marc Lepage‘s profile and experience asks for my opinion on several subjects related to e-Readiness is, to say the least, quite a compliment.

Questions are many but can be grouped in two:

• Are there any e-readiness models to be followed to draw Information Society strategies?
• What methodology would be more applicable in post-conflict countries: an existing one (for the sake of comparability) or a customized one?

These issues are really broad and I don’t think there is one solution but many, so I decided to write my thoughts here so other people can join and bring their insights.

e-Readiness models and Information Society strategies

Let’s put this really short. Nowadays, there are:

• e-readiness indices, collections of indicators and rankings, to measure the state of development (as defined by the authors of such measuring tools) of the Information Society, normally at the country level
• e-readiness guides or assessment methodologies to help, on a check-list basis, to determine the strengths and weaknesses in Information Society matters and, hence, serve as an inspiration to design your own strategy.

The main problem is that indices and guides do not go hand in hand. On one hand, indices are really global, mainly designed for developed countries, with a strong bias towards infrastructures and, most important, present a snapshot of isolated indicators, not providing the relationship — and causability — among them. On the other hand, guides are (usually) old (came up with the digital divide fever from the first years of the XXIst century), focused in just one aspect (usually e-commerce) and do not provide measuring tools (i.e. they are not necessarily using the same concepts as e-readiness indices.)

Concerning e-readiness models and assessment guides, there are many, but here comes a short selection:

Some indices

• ITU Digital Opportunity Index
• United Nations ICT Opportunity Index (ITU and UNCTAD, after George Sciadas‘s work
• The World Economic Forum Networked Readiness Index
• The Economist Intelligence Unit e-Readiness Rankings
• OECD Key ICT Indicators (not an index)
• UNPAN E-government Readiness Index
• Find more here: ICT Data sources.

Some guides

• Center for International Development at Harvard University (2000) Readiness for the Networked World. A Guide for Developing Countries
• CSPP (2000) Readiness Guide for Living in the Networked World
• Adamal, A., Lanvin, B. & Schware,R. (2005) E-strategies Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit
• APEC (2000) E-Commerce Readiness Assessment Guide
• McConnell International (2001) Ready? Net. Go! Partnerships Leading The Global Economy. See also other works by McConnell International and Peppers & Rogers Group
• Find more here: Readings on e-Readiness.

So, trying to have a comprehensive tool would require to choose one guide and see how to use the several existing indices and indicators to measure the variables appearing in your guide. Or, instead, you can go your own way and try to obtain your own data, either because it is published by national statistics agencies or because you can collect them on your own. In the first case, it is likely that national agencies already provide all relevant data to e.g. ITU or OECD or they are not collecting it. In the second case, surveys are really expensive. If you do it just once, you won’t be able to analyze trends and impact of your strategies. If you do it several times, highest costs might make preferable to adapt your analysis to existing data than try and collect them without help. A mid-way solution is, of course, engage the national statistics agency and help them in their work (e.g. in the design).

Nevertheless, as said there are limitations in both measuring tools and assessment and strategy guides, namely

• Bias towards infrastructures.
• Sectoral focus, normally in e-Commerce or e-Government.
• Lack of focus in digital content and services.
• Poor data in digital literacy.
• Poor data in regulation and the legal framework.
• Lack of cross-data analysis (e.g. to see what’s the relationship between existence of installed capacity and digital literacy, or digital literacy and intensity of use of digital public services) necessary to establish priorities and road-maps.
• Bias towards developed countries’ focused strategies: context is usually provided from a western/developed point of view
• Bias towards state-of-the-art technology: goals and optimums are usually set on a basis of best-technology-available, not most-suitable-technology

[continues in e-Readiness in post-conflict and developing countries: a reflection (part II)].

The World Economic Forum’s Global Information Technology Report 2007-2008 is out. In my opinion, it does not bring any surprises, but reinforces some trends that we’ve been seeing lately:

• The increasing strength and importance of wireless technologies to get connected to the Network
• A gradual shift of the research focus from quantitative/economic impact analysis towards more qualitative/social impact analysis
• Hence, the realization that ICTs are much more than (information) productivity tools, and they have a role in socialization (through communication), mediated by digital literacy

Part of the Global Information Technology Report gets its data from the World Economic Forum’s Executive Opinion Survey, which, conducted annually, captures the perceptions of the leading business and investment decision-makers worldwide (many of whom represent the Forum’s member companies). As a qualitative survey, and based on perceptions, all conclusions arising from it might be taken with tons of caution. Nevertheless, there are some findings that, even if taken with caution, are worth deserving a thoughtspan:

[click to enlarge]

As the chart shows, there is a clear relationship between quality of an educational system (at the aggregate country level) and the existence of not computers but Internet access in schools. As said, while Internet access in schools is measured quantitatively after surveys sent to sample schools in every country, the Quality of the Educational System is a variable measured through a qualitative, subjective indicator after asking the 8,000 interviewees of the Executive Opinion Survey. In the survey, the respondents range the educational system from 0 to 7 whether the Educational system
[serves the] needs of competitive economy.

Depending on how you agree with the definition of “quality” for a national educational system, and how you’d like the reality to fit your beliefs, different interpretations arise:

• The more straightforward: Internet access increases the quality of the educational system. The more Internet access, the better education.
• Inversely, we can say that high quality educational systems are more eager to introduce the Internet in schools than lower quality ones. The more quality of the system, the more (awareness in) the use of Internet.
• There’s a relationship between educational quality (as understood by the Executive Opinion Survey) and Internet access in schools, but we do not know which is the cause and which the consequence: they just happen to go hand in hand.

Even if some of the previous statements are sweet music for cyberoptimists (like me), I wouldn’t strongly stand for any of it: there are too many loose ends to be axiomatic.

But one thing is absolutely clear: even if we cannot establish (yet) any causality between quality and educational Internet access, the perception is that some degree of relationship does exist. And if this perception is widely shared at both the decision-taker and policy-maker levels, some consequences in the short run would be likely to be expected:

1. Firms would be more likely to hire candidates with strong digital competences, as it looks like Internet and quality go together, and quality means a more competitive economy (i.e. firm).
2. Stress would then be put in teaching digital skills in the design of educational strategies, along with the introduction of the Internet in the school
3. If the Internet — this huge information silo — enters the classroom, the role of the educator should change, and shift from an information holder to a knowledge acquisition enabler or facilitator
4. Open educational resources should be coming in and out of the classroom both as input and output
5. This abundance of (educational) material would require more and better reputation systems and information assessment systems, all of them based in more and better digital skills
6. And back to #1

In the most conservative scenario, I see this as the perception of inflation: regardless whether there is not the slightest chance for inflation to happen, if citizens believe so, there’ll be inflation. The sensation is now that digital skills matter and that we are going to evaluate education under this light. Schools must not just let themselves go along with the current (i.e. the cyberhype), but neither swimming against it.

Share:

The Canadian Institute of Distance Education Research, University of Athabasca, has invited me to impart a seminar in the framework of the CIDER Sessions about my digressions around The Personal Research Portal. The focus here will be on the educator, as I did in my article El portal personal del profesor: El claustro virtual o la red tras las aulas [The Personal Research Portal: The Virtual Faculty or the Net behind the Classroom].

The seminar will take place online — using Elluminate — on Friday 11th April 2008, at 17:00h GMT (in English).

Relevant info

• Materials for the seminar (browse and download)
• Link to Presentation (click to log in 30min prior to the start of the presentation)
• CIDER Sessions home page

Update:
Recording of the Presentation (, 15 Mb)

Abstract

Instructional technology has suffered, in our opinion, two revolutions and a half during the last decades. The first one was, there is no doubt, the introduction of the personal computer in the educational environment. The second one, the appearance of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in a broader sense – that implied, among other things, connecting the PC to the network – and their use in teaching. The “half” left, as it actually is a corollary of the latter, the one brought by the so called Web 2.0, thus giving birth to what has been dubbed as Education 2.0.

Notwithstanding, the emphasis has been put, most of the times, in how these technologies impact the relationship between teacher and student or how these technologies whether and how enhance the learning process and its results: how can ICTs be used to improve education administration, how can they help teaching in a classroom, applications in distance learning, etc.

Our aim in this seminar is to shift out of the spotlight and focus on the “hidden” practices of education, to stress on all the tasks that happen outside the classroom – be it of bricks and mortar or virtual – before or when designing a subject or teaching it to the students, what happens after that teaching, etc. in this necessary phase of reflection and redefinition of concepts, syllabuses, practices and so on… but without students. We want to make some proposals on how educators can use ICTs in their more open, participative and social side to build themselves a place on the net, to weave their own network of colleagues, to share resources, exchange experiences or suggest doubts and questions to the rest of education professionals.

Our ultimate goal would be to highlight that we think it is possible to build a virtual faculty based on their personal portals built with Web 2.0 tools, way beyond teacher spaces inside virtual learning environments or other corporate tools from educational institutions, thus leaving room for individual initiative and, most important, digital presence and digital identity.

Acknowledgements

Sincerest thanks go to Lynn Anderson for the proposal, all the e-mailing that we’ve been having through the last weeks and the support in preparing the seminar.

I have been invited to create some materials and impart a workshop on content assessment systems. The idea is comparing the traditional academic system of double blind peer review with other systems emerging on the Information Society to assess content in online communities, like the ones used in Wikipedia, Slashdot or Digg. But without using computers: everything off-line, analogue.

A project within the framework of the Bank of Common Knowledge, the idea is to help communities — online or offline, whatever — to evaluate their incoming content in order to assess its suitability for their purposes. To do so, we created a workshop were the rudiments of several systems (three, so far) were explained, compared and practiced in simulations of situations where such content had to be evaluated — in no more than an hour.

Adapting online systems for offline use — no computers used — has been quite a challenge and, of course, not all features of online systems could be included, for both reasons of time or feasibility. One of this (sadly) missing features is all the karma system which, in some way, is the core reputation system — explicit or implicit — of many online communities, the problem being that karma is cumulative along time and requires lots of interaction, direct or indirect voting on the user and his contributions, etc., something the workshop just cannot aim at achieving. In other words: content and reputation of the user creating or promoting this content are becoming, as time passes, two sides of the same coin, something that not necessarily has been this was in analogue systems like the scientific peer review, where double blindness is usually a must.

After a beta testing that took place in February, the last version of the workshop will be officially presented today at 20:00 at the Centre de Cultura Contemporània de Barcelona [Center for Contemporary Culture], as an scheduled activity at the NOW – Meetings in the Present Continuous biennial platform.

I’m in terrible debt with the Platoniq collective (especially Olivier Schulbaum and Susana Noguero) for inviting me (and putting up together such a terrific project like the Bank of Common Knowledge), the beta testers that provided much valuable feedback unselfishly, and Pau Alsina for his networking aptitudes.

More info

• Sistemas de evaluación de contenidos (, 482.59 Kb), materials for the workshop (Spanish)
• Short video presentation about the Bank of Common Knowledge (English, dubbed in Spanish)
• Another short video presentation about the Bank of Common Knowledge (Spanish)
• Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press. — a good reading (more or less) related to this subject

Daniela de Carvalho Matielo presents a PhD seminar at the Internet Interdisciplinary Institute, UOC.

Challenging the digital divide: the role of telecenters in e-inclusion practices.

First, Daniela brings a short introduction to the concept of the Digital Divide as lack of access to ICTs.

Digital Inclusion is then the effort to guarantee everyone has access to the Information Society.

The problem is that there is not only one digital divide, but many: geographical, etc.

These efforts have, hence, many designs, from fiscal incentives to direct provision of Internet access from physical places: telecenters, places people can go to use telecommunication services. The main difference with a cyber cafe is profit — in the latter case — or bridging the digital divide — in the fomer case —.

Three moments of digital inclusion (according to Warschauer):

• Device model: physical access
• Connexion model: access to the Network
• Literacy model: uses and contexts

A shift is now taking place towards a more social-aspects focused strategy:

• What are the main competences to use the computer: digital literacy
• What are the uses that certain communities can give to computers and the Internet: technology appropriation

But it seems that this shift has gone from “technological determinism” to “social determinism”, from an approach where technology would solve each and every problem (cyberoptimism) where just everything can be solved inside the “black box” of the community.

But, technologies are not neutral and the actor-network theory (ANT) can bring some light to the issue.

What do we have so far?

• Official reports about telecenter use and users
• Scientific studies, both qualitative and quantitative

“Community Informatics” is a field whose goal is to analyze the uses of ICTs in communities.

Research Questions / Hypotheses

• Technology plays an important role. This role is usually neglected at higher levels.
• There is a big differnetce between practice and goals in telecenters as stated in their official discourses

Following the ANT, there’s an interaction — chains of association — between users and technologies so, after passing through a “black box”, become from digital illiterate to literate, and from technologies to properly appropriated technologies.

The methodology to be used in this research will be, based on the ANT, do an ethnography in a telecenter to disclose the relationships of technology appropriation by users.

Comments

• Several persons in the audience state that ANT might not be the best approach, as it takes for granted that there is a role performed by technologies, and a relationship technology-user, which is exactly what the research wants to find.
• I state that this could be balanced (theory vs. practice, positivism vs. normativism) by balancing ANT with a participatory action research instead of performing an ethnography.
• Somebody also points that it would be interesting to see how digital literacy (strictly personal) can be complemented with technology socialization, so a social framework is created through technology, so the digital literate can then interact “technologically” with others, and socialize.

Two years ago we here spoke about e-Readiness and the Human Development Index. The chart we then plotted was similar to this one:

[click to enlarge]

This chart now adds two tendency curves: one (exponential) for countries with a Human Development Index (HDI) over 7.00, and another one (linear, though absolutely irrelevant, on the other hand) for countries under 7.00 — though there are lots of countries missing: too poor to appear on the charts…).

Even if the regression is not really accurate (not at all) we can more or less see a relationship between e-Readiness and Development (as measured as HDI).

One of the main criticisms I have against how the digital divide, the Information Society or e-Readiness is measured (see below “More info” for a couple of references) is that it either takes one of the following paths:

• Focus almost exclusive on infrastructures
• A too broad approach thus including “analogue noise” (i.e. non-digital indicators or analogue economy indicators — provided such a thing makes sense, which I believe it does in the field of development)

In any case, huge voids appear: digital literacy levels, the regulation framework and richness of content and e-services.

Are these lacks relevant?

Let’s take a look at the measurement of Inequality (from the HDI database, calculated after the World Bank’s World Development Indicators), comparing the ratio of 20% richest ones to 20% poorest ones, and ratio of 10% richest ones to 10% poorest ones. And we chart it against the year 2007 World Economic Forum’s Networked Readiness Index (we plot the second one logarithmically, just for a change):

[click to enlarge]

[click to enlarge]

As can be easily seen in both comparisons — linear for the 20% to 20% inequality; logarithmically for the 10% to 10% inequality — there does not seem to be any kind of relationship between e-Readiness and Inequality. But whose problem is this? the reality’s or our models’? Does it really make sense that a country with highest inequalities can be as e-ready as another one with a more balanced income/wealth distribution?

It is no news that income inequalities carry on associated inequalities in education, in political stability, social and community engagement, security and crime, etc. So, can a society with low/uneven human capital, political instability, poor community engagement, high crime rates… be as e-ready as another one with better scores in these indicators? Intuition clearly and loudly shouts no, not at all, by any means.

Then, where’s the problem? In my opinion, it undoubtedly is in how we measure how good our degree of Information Society development is.

And, if so, where are we failing? I guess here are some places to look at:

• We pay too much attention to infrastructures. They are needed, of course, but they are means, not ends. ICT infrastructures should be seen as a necessary condition for ICT development, but not as a sufficient condition.
• We quite always forget about digital literacy, getting rid of it with a simple “number of Internet/PC/mobile phone users” indicator, an indicator which does not measure how different uses can leverage ICTs for development.
• Even if we approach digital literacy, aggregate measures do not discriminate between different users and the individual benefits they get, or how their different levels of skills impact on their productivity or their employability.
• At the aggregate level, it is easy that big firms’ ICT achievements and Governments’ big investments overshadow poor ICT adoption and performance by SMEs, thus provoking a paradox: at the aggregate level, ICT investment and consumption is great, but “no one” is using them (a reframing of Solow paradox?).
• Our knowledge on how ICTs affect social parameters — out of the Economy arena — is way too poor. So, we are having tough times to incorporate such parameters in our e-Readiness models and indices. Does e-Administration, e-Government and e-Democracy matter? At what level? Does ICT skills matter in multi-factor productivity? At what level? Can this be included in our models?

Put short: I guess we are missing people in our models. I am not saying it is easy to do, but we are actually missing the key.

More info

• Peña-López, I. (2007). ICTs for development: from e-Readiness to e-Awareness. Seminar imparted in Barcelona, November 20th, 2007 at the Executive Master in e-Governance, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne. Barcelona: ICTlogy.
• Peña-López, I. (2007). Unpeeling the layers of the digital divide: category thresholds and relationships within composite indices. ICTlogy Working Paper Series #2. Karlstad: ICTlogy.