By Ismael Peña-López (@ictlogist), 13 December 2010
Main categories: ICT4D, Meetings
Other tags: anita_gurumurthy, ictd2010, james_murphy, janaki_srinivasan, jenna_burrell, padraig_carmody
5 Comments »
James Murphy (Clark University) and Pádraig Carmody (Trinity College Dublin)
How can ICT research better inform and communicate theories of development and globalization? New challenges and promising directions
- How can we conceptualize the impact of ICT on the relationsihps between palces in the world system?
- How can studies of ICT use an d impact better inform theoretical explanations for uneven development and between places?
- What theoretical frameworks can help us in better understanding what’s going on in the ICT4D discipline?
The session splits in groups to discuss these topics. Here are the main aspects that raised in the groups.
ICT, indigenous rights, and new global inerconnectivities
Moderates: Jenna Burrell
- What is the place of indigenous knowledge in the context of discussionas around the global “knowledge society”?
- Cross-cultural encounters via ICT: as connectivity extends, how are these efforts to bridge between North ad South turning out?
Indigenous knowledge is usually understood in time and space, but specifically as something about the past, and that latter understanding of “indigenous” is one that should be eradicated.
Indigenous knowledge has been also localized, closed within small communities that have no contact and no impact with larger ones, with universal knowledge. That is something that should be better understood too.
ICT, the global-local nexus, and the political economy of development in the Global South
Moderates: Janaki Srinivasan
- Studies of ICT-based development initiatives are often based on what Hart calls “impact model” (Hart 2002). Can we move away of this conception of development?
Development should be depoliticized, in the sense of being separated from political power bargains. That would ease the sustainability / sustainable development factor to step in the agenda.
ICT governance is crucial to understand the dynamics of ICTs and development.
We should also focus at the real impact of huge information flows, and see whether they are really empowering people or, instead, concentrating power in a few people’s hands.
Inclusion
Moderates: Anita Gurumurthy
Can we understand development differently from turning everything into a commodity?
Indeed, with the excuse of “stakeholderism”, many institutions participate in development without the required transparency and accountability.
The technological change is not governed, and there is a need for it to be, so that the impact of that change is precisely in the intended direction.
Collaboration vs. competition.
Importance of capability and competences when talking about an ICT-mediated society or an ICT-fostered change/development.
Inclusion is mostly about local-level decision making, and this is where ICTs should have an important field to act in.
ICT, uneven development, and spatial integration
Moderates: Pádraig Carmody and Jim Murphy
- How do ICTs reshape geographies of uneven development? How might ICTs contribute to spatial integration and marginalization, both directly and indirectly? Who are the principals actors and drivers and through what channels?
- How might we better conceptualize the ways in which ICT are, or are not, being absorbed into production, marketing, and innovation systemsw in order to better assess whether they are enabling upgrading and more progressive forms of economic globalization?
How can ICTs change power structures? ICTs can be empowering and disempowering.
Is there an overuse of ICTs?
Who trains an educates in the use of ICTs and capabilities that they require?
Information and Communication Technologies and Development (2010)
By Ismael Peña-López (@ictlogist), 13 December 2010
Main categories: ICT4D, Meetings
Other tags: anita_gurumurthy, anriette_esterhuysen, erik_hersman, ictd2010, indrajit_banerjee, ken_banks, tim_unwin
4 Comments »
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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)
By Ismael Peña-López (@ictlogist), 11 December 2010
Main categories: Development, e-Readiness, ICT4D, Meetings
Other tags: ictd2010
No Comments »
I am presenting two posters at the International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development (ICTD2010).
The posters are, actually, the usual poster and the corresponding academic paper explaining what the poster is picturing. Below can be found the two papers and the two posters for anyone to download. The posters are a set of 8 slides in A3 size plus a first slide that maps how to build the puzzle so it all ends up with the actual A0-size poster.
Information and Communication Technologies and Development (2010)
