The role of ICTs to educate about sexually transmitted diseases prevention, especially to educate educators.
An important aspect of such education is to ease the communication between the physicists and their patients.
Goals
Train educators about these diseases… and how to educate about them
Sensitize youngsters about prevention
Mobilize policy makers
The main successes are, above all, the speed and spread of information and training, with a strong focus on prevention, which is where information can actually make a difference.
Tools: a platform with three axes (1) content (2) spaces for debate (3) online assistance
[note: in this session, cybervolunteer = ICT volunteer, not online volunteer. See my Online Volunteering Taxonomy for more details]
Volunteers experts in ICTs to help users in telecenters.
Volunteers are trained about attitudes, techniques, the environment they are going to work in, the target beneficiaries of the several activities, etc.
The public-private partnership between the regional administration (coordinating the project) and the local administrations and telecenters a must for success.
Training for nonprofits about technology for nonprofits, with a strong use of Web 2.0 applications, such as feed aggregation, metablogs, wikis, instant messaging, VoIP, microblogging, online volunteering, etc.
Blogs in the field: use of blogs to raise advocacy and transparency by writing within and from a development project.
Blogs at the headquarters: same, but from the nonprofit headquarters (no need to be really there, but the focus)
Planets: feed aggregators, automatically updated once have been set up. The information comes to you.
Wikis: Where nonprofits share their information, handbooks, procedures… and with the possibility that this information can be updated/build collaboratively.
Caveat: some of these initiatives are not top-down, not institutional, but raised by individuals, sometimes as a personal answer (critique?) to the bureaucratic slowness and lack of flexible response of some organizations.
Social networks: some of them using richest media, such as The Hub.
We should shift from talking about technology to talking about the uses of it. The Web 2.0 allows this shift, as technological solutions come more and more irrelevant.
Free flow of information: RSS, copyleft or open licensing, syndication
To enable media diffusion, especially video, for nonprofits and development issues.
Their role is to act as a new information agency to cover events, projects from nonprofits. It runs on a volunteering basis coming from the media sector + a technological platform to broadcast video.
The goal is not only to broadcast, but have audience too, thus the commitment with high-quality low-band requisites of the portal.
José Manrique López de la Fuente Opportunities of Mobile Web in developing countries
Success bridging the digital divide
The will, motivation to access the Net
Material access
Personal capacity, competences
Access to advanced uses
The importance to generate local business possibilities based on ICTs.
Part of the material access and personal capacity interaction is about the ease of use, that should be kept clear in all ICT4D projects.
Mobile Solutions
Specific applications for mobile phones: maximum integration with the device, but device diversity can generate incompatibilities
Voice and/or SMS based solutions: simple and working, interoperability could be a pro or a con
The Web as platform: rich, standards are mainstream
Mobile Web
Advantage: Integration of existing solutions
Advantage: Technologies based on open standards
Problem: user experience, diversity and cost in some places
Problem: low-tech devices that cannot access the web, mobile carriers not providing access
Carolina Moreno Asenjo Global Networks and social engagement: ICT integration strategies at Entreculturas
Goals
Improve quality in education, at a global level
Foster advocacy through ICTs
Fight the “loneliness” of the teacher in his classroom
Cut down costs in training and knowledge sharing
Create a link to catalyze network building
Leverage communities of practice and communities of learning with ICTs.
Challenges
engagement of the beneficiaries
funding
logistics when setting up the hardware and technological platform
Eduardo Pérez Gutiérrez Geographic Information Systems in Educational Centers for Regional Development
Goals: Develop web-based GISs for diagnose and monitoring of educational centers for regional development.
To fight lack of education in remote, rural areas, governments supply these regions with instructors, that are not actually teachers but have a broader profile, socially speaking, but a lower profile as an educator. So, their social profile is good to interact with the community but the quality of teaching might not be as good as expected.
The GIS should help cross data about the reach of an instructor’s activity, the profile of the population reached by this instructor, etc. and then help the decision-making about the instructor, his activity, the way he spends his budget, etc.
Benefits: focused investments, allows centralized administration, transparency and monitoring, enables confidence, provides context and helps strategy design.
Paula Uimonen: Is development cooperation prepared?
No. The structure is too bureaucratic.
But the network logic is horizontal, cross-sectorial, transversal, non-hierarchical.
But it seems that the international arena is working for a more networked development cooperation sector.
Shafika Isaacs: Are organizations prepared to network?
It depends: they’re all in an evolutionary process.
There’re more and more organizations working in the field of ICT4D.
And a rising awareness on the issue.
Big leadership behind ICT4D fostering.
Common agenda that enabled collaboration and networking, especially withing the civil society, with an inflection point at the WSIS.
Vikas Nath: What is networking and how can this be achieved?
People join networks for two reasons: (1) more benefit than the cost of joining it and (2) multiplier effect that a network is increased by one member.
There’s no optimum design for a network: the network will shape itself according to its needsl.
Conclusions from my group (the four people above)
Objective facts
Network culture assumes the character of the leading person/organization, of the dominant personalities
Networking is about “we”, and ceases to exist when focused at the “I” — not a consensus on this part
The Network Society is here, and is here to stay
In developed countries — and their institutions and organizations — infrastructures is not the issue
Big funding agents foster collaboration through compulsory partnerships
Network participation implies engagement with the other (which might be different from you), boundary crossing
Criticism
Where there is power there is resistance, and resistance is also organized in networks (Foucault)
We lose to dream, we ain’t dreaming enough, we “think small”
Lack of e-awareness
Competition for funding
New concepts
The contradiction that the network compromises the individual with the collective will
Networks can bring disruptive creation
I exist because I am on the Internet
The Network is becoming more “real” than reality itself, we should think digital
Intutitions
Network creates a more human society
The power dynamics are designed by the network leaders
The network is cold and has no emotions
Big nonprofits will act as hubs, and distribute work to smallest nonprofits and individual online volunteers
Optimism
The social and cultural aspects of ICTs will promote networking
We have potential to make positive changes, because we are the network,and networks have potential to make significant changes
Web 2.0 enabling more collaboration and bottom-up initiatives
Control
Resistance, which leads to lack of change
Endorsement, that leads to progress
Impossibility to keep tight control
Flexibilize organizations
Focus on what value you are adding to the network
Be a statue sometimes and not always the pigeon
General conclusions (from all groups)
Networks are here and are powerful
There’s evidence of change and shifting towards networking: in the society, in organizations. And there’s an evolving trend towards more networking
Networks are catalysts, make things happen, have multiplier effects… but they have no essence on their own, they just mirror the good and bad things of the society, what works and what does not work, there’s nothing new under the (networked) sun but humans
Strong need to enable individuals so they can work with ICTs, in networked frameworks
Same with organizations: collective change, organizational change, reshaping according to networking needs
We have to make networks explicit, design them, rule them, have common goals, a common agenda, managing confidence and leadership. Monitoring and network assessment is a must that comes along with network creation and maintenance.
We should work towards inclusive networks, fostering capacities, networks that empower their nodes so they can still be a part of the network.
The Web 2.0 is seen as a (potential) inclusion concept/philosophy/technology, an empowering one
Caveat #1: all these conclusions are not axiomatic: there are shades, blurring edges, contradictions, etc.
Caveat #2: this is how we see networks today, but we should also keep in mind that networks (and society) will evolve, so should these conclusions
Crisis of performance, effectiveness, results, etc. in development cooperation, despite the increasing amount of resources devoted to it.
Reasons
Industrial way of thinking, not post-industrial. The actual development paradigm is old and not valid. We need a new, up-to-date paradigm.
Focus on pilot projects that are not maintained after the pilot phase, so they die in the medium- or long-run.
Short-sightedness of asymmetric internationalism: there’s more and more knowledge in the South about south issues than in the north, so don’t (you northern developed country) look at your local environment, because it does not mirror the southern reality.
Money is an issue, but not the issue.
Solutions?
Try a new networked, collaborative way of designing and implementing projects
Forget about old ways of accountability and reporting mainly focused to satisfy the “needs” of the funding institution’s bureaucracy: instead, public accountability through the institutional web site, blogs, etc.
Boost (local) leaders, people that can enable (social) changes. Horizontal leadership and social capital, again enhancing networks and (symmetric) networking
Development and ICT4D are blurring concepts that are becoming indivisible aspects of Development in general.
We’ve much focused in access to infrastructures that we didn’t realize that mobile telephony was closing the digital divide at our backs. So, how does the telecenter has to adapt to this trend and make of (a) the PC+Internet a (still) valuable tool and (b) the mobile phone a more powerful tool (as the PC+Internet is)
New cooperation models: from charity to collaborative business strategies where both partners (northern, southern) benefit/profit from ICT4D projects.
More on horizontal leadership
The assumption that you (the North) can change the world, with just one project, designed in the framework of your office, is absolutely wrong. It’s better to empower, boost the leaders that are already operating this change through their daily work, so they can have a wider and deeper reach and impact, so the social change truly happens and at a higher level.
It’s not that we have to forget about all we’ve learned through the years about development, but just forget about the asymmetry that now rules development cooperation.
Paula Uimonen: It makes lesser and lesser sense the North-to-South approach of knowledge and aid transfer. More and more the South is sovereign to define its own needs, and should be able to ask for help, resources and so to the North, but not to have to indiscriminately accept what comes from it.
Q: can I help you if you (country) don’t have a framework, an explicit policy to foster ICTs?
Shafika Isaacs states that in most Africa such policies do exist [focus in education], and the frameworks, even in an emergent state, they are already built and capable of processing/absorb any project or help that might come in the field of ICTs. Even more, the network to enable a knowledge exchange practice is already there, and this is the priority of Africa.
Q: can we set up ICT4D projects/agencies/development cooperation in the South?
Vikas Nath: Sure. There’s been lot of work already been done in the private sector arena, and now’s the turn for the civil society to lead the process, enabled/fostered by such cooperation. And this empowered society (private firms, nonprofits, etc.) are actually and already leading some interesting development projects, trends, paths, etc.
Q: what kind of action should design an international agency to work in Latin America to foster the Information Society?
Eiko Kawamura: first of all, have a clear map of what the local reality is like, specially describing the real needs of the beneficiaries, what do people need in communication related issues.
A huge problem in top-down initiatives is that they have embedded by default their own (success) indicators, most of them quantitative, while raising living standards, welfare, is most times a matter of qualitative perceptions… and indeed a long term issue, sometimes quite separated in time from the project itself. You might be measuring the irrelevant and forgetting the relevant.
Another problem is short-run, pilot projects that do not have time enough to (positively) effectively impact the community, while they generate financial dependences that do not take into account sustainability issues in the long run.
Random comments from the audience
ICTs crucial for development (by a man from Angola’s government)
The importance of capacity building and digital literacy when/besides “installing computers”
Importance of top level commitment and policies to framework ICT4D projects
Shift the focus from computers to education
Shafika Isaacs: right, there’s high penetration of mobile phones in Africa, way greater that computers/Internet, but removing out of the spotlight computers/Internet just because they have lesser penetration would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water. We have to work in how such different technologies can be integrated, and this means mobile phones + computers + Internet, but also radio, that has a huge penetration in Africa and is really popular.
Eiko Kawamura: Indeed, the problem with mobile phones is that they’re (still) expensive and (still) just used for text messaging, so she agrees with Shafika Isaacs about integrating different technologies so they fit different purposes.
Vikas Nath: we’re suffering a lock in syndrome in ICT4D. The lack of infrastructures and literacy does not let us think about effective uses/applications of ICTs for Development. A vicious circle. We have to break it and surely policies and government strategies is a good means to.
Manuel Acevedo: it’s important to use ICTs to do old things in a better way. But, what about trying to do new things?
Keynote speech: Manuel Acevedo The challenges of the integration of ICTs in a networked cooperation
How do we integrate ICTs in Development Cooperation? What does “networked cooperation” exactly means?
Human Development and Network Society
Human Development according to Amartya Sen: not only “physical” development, possibilities, but also capabilities, entitlements.
Network Society according to Manuel Castells: everything (society) is structured in networks, which are indeed different from hierarchical, vertical structures.
ICTs for Development
Denning: we can describe knowledge ecosystems, using the metaphor of a garden: Knowledge cannot be extracted, we have to make it grow
Labelle: ICTs for Development:
making access easy
helping countries to reach knowledge economy
enabling people
Digital Divide
access
capacity
relevant content
Fostering the Information Society:
Infrastructure
Capacity
Services
Content
Education
Health
Work
Commerce
e-Government
Other Services
Legal Framework
Policies
Mainstreaming ICTs in Development Cooperation
Use it in each and every aspect of the daily work in a cooperation agency or nonprofit: design, planning, project implementation and management, communication, etc.
It, hence, implies and extensive adoption of ICTs within the organization.
Issues: special attention towards ICT integration, corporate strategies about ICT4D, specialized departments about ICT4D, ICT4D project funding, etc.
Reasons to: increase efficacy; more control about performance and autonomy; stimulator and catalytic effect, using the own organization as a sandbox; to share knowledge and good practices.
Networks for Development
1-D networks: much alike hierarchies
2-D networks: coordinated; norms very important; action is mostly planned; access to information is the priority
3-D networks: nodes are to dynamize the network; no coordinators; the functioning is ad-hoc; monitoring is periodic; knowledge creation is the priority
Development networks
corporate
about knowledge or thematic
around projects
networked projects
open source
created by “diaspora”
3-D networks, enabling networks, are the best fit for development cooperation
Development Cooperation needs a redesign in its architecture, shifting towards networked collaboration. And same stands for projects, not only for organizations. A shift towards putting knowledge at the center would be a must. It is important to state that the network creates a network capital, which emerges from the fact of the mere existence (and intensive use, of course) of the network.
Martha Cleveland-Innes: Disciplinary differences and the impact on online design and delivery
Martha Cleveland-Innes
Different disciplines have different approaches on e.g. what quality is. And there is little research assessing what are the points of view of such disciplines concerning digital learning. So, there is a need to investigate the disciplinary effects on quality definitions, what are the quality factors, etc. Can we draw a common online quality matrix?
The practitioners’ point if view is that we have to focus on the student and his learning experience. On the other hand, while there doesn’t seem to be a unique use for a specific technology, evidence shows that peer-to-peer working enhances collaboration, sharing and a better output in educational terms.
How are disciplinary differences affecting online learning?
Disciplines were sorted in two axes: hard vs. soft, pure vs. applied
Hard-pure: pure sciences. Knowledge is cumulative, atomistic, concerned with universals, quantities, simplification; driven by observations, discovery of new facts… e.g. Physics.
Soft-pure: humanities. More reiterative, holistic, concerned with particulars, qualities. Critical thinking, apply theories, experiential, personal constructions of knowledge… e.g. History
Hard-applied: technologies. Pragmatic. Field is unique, and must be treated as such, interdisciplinary but required skill standards… e.g. Engineering
Soft-applied: applied social science. Functional, utilitarian. Theory into practice, mastery of applied knowledge… e.g. Education
The essential pedagogy of… and their pedagogical model
Hard-pure: content focus and text-based. Well-written presentations and hands-on labs
Soft-pure: critical thinking and reading, logic, argumentation, discussion. Dialogue, deep learning, constructivism
Hard-applied: collaborative yet objective and exact. Multi-modal, simulations interactive, case based
Soft-applied: collaborative skill development. Experiential, problem based
The debate began here and was richest. It dealt with how to design different methodologies according to different disciplines, whether “one-size-fits-all” is a good idea, or it might work well as a starting point that need evolve in the future, etc.
Professor Lourdes Guàrdia correctly points that sometimes this “starting point” is designed from an economic sustainability point of view, more than from pedagogy, so faculty can do little to have their voices herd during this first phase to build a model and make it sustainable.
