It's interesting to see that the issue of what the "field" of ICT4D, ICTD (or whatever ) is, has been the topic of several discussions on blogs and email lists. Chris Coward for example ( http://chriscoward.wordpress.com/2009/03/11/ict4d-ictd-or-what/ ) seems to feel new words or concepts are needed to describe what it is we research and do (although I'm not certain something along the lines of "underserved communities.." does justice to what we do, especially as this is essentially a telco/regulatory concept). I do agree with him, that donors and the private sector have probably dictated too much of what "ICT4D" is, with the consequence of not allowing for the study of certain issues, that are arguably important to society, but are deemed by the "field" to not be relevant as it isn't linked to development.
I had a similar back and forth discussion with one ICT reseracher-practitioner who felt a topic like "internet addiction" wasn't an appropriate issue to study in ICT4D, as it wasn't a priority for poverty reduction. I won't go into the intricacies of the arguments, but basically I feel that if society deems a topic relevant, characterised by significant media attention, as well as goverment, civil society and commercial interventions (as is the case of internet addiction, particularly in Asia), it is worthy of study. The ICT "4D" aspect would however mean that the research would need to be instrumental (no need to get into post-modern critiques of positivism, thank you....). However, I could see ICTD being interested in simply describing the phenomenon, without needing to find an instrumental purpose for the research.
Anyway, I continue my search for a post-ICT4D concept...
No comments:
Post a Comment