Friday, March 7, 2014
My recent publications....
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Create your own visited countries map or check out the JavaScript Charts.
Friday, November 8, 2013
Monday, June 24, 2013
Monday, April 22, 2013
State of social networks
Source: viralblog.com via Amy on Pinterest
Wired on what to do for the data disenfranchised
David Rowan : "What did you do for the data disenfranchised?'
"In a big-data world it takes an exponentially rising curve of statistics to bring home just how subjugated we now are to the data cruncher's powers. Each day, according to IBM, we collectively generate 2.5 quintillion bytes of structured and unstructured data that's growing, in IDC's reckoning, at 60 per cent a year. Walmart drags a million hourly retail transactions into a database that long ago passed 2.5 petabytes; Facebook processes 500 terabytes of data each day; Google's YouTube division alone accumulates 24 petabytes of data in a single day. No wonder the rock star of Silicon Valley these days is the analytically inclined data scientist...."
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Securing the cyber-commons conference (Munk Centre March 2011)
This was a well-attended conference organized by Ron Deibert and Rafal Rohozinski, our partners within the PAN supported Open net Initiative Asia project. A veritable “who’s who” participated, including Margaret Atwood, Mel Cappe (ex-Clerk of the privy Council), senior military, intelligence and foreign affairs officials from various countries and top academics and practitioners in this field (Evgeny Morozov, John Palfrey, Ethan Zuckerman..), Some key points from the conference: After the Egyptian revolution a contract was found in the ministry of information in Egypt on information security with a German firm. This highlights the need to better understand the relationship between western firms and authoritarian regimes. Moreover, most at the conference speakers felt that “Mubaraking” (i.e cutting off) the Internet, didn't last because it had become socially impossible and economically self-defeating. Deibert highlighted key trends that are changing the relationship between society and technology: (1) demographic change: two thirds of internet users are under 25 ( digital natives). This youth bulge is reshaping the Internet and, in turn, society (hacktivists, anonymous, etc..) (2) States as a result of the use of technology for liberation purposes, are building large firewalls. States are also becoming aggressive at using the Internet (repression 2.0: crowdsourcing protester identification). (3) Militarization of cyberspace. (4) Globalized cyber crime. However, the greatest agent of change is the growing problem of the cyber-enabled disenfranchised: “they will hack their way out of poverty”. With the growth of groups like Anonymous, hacking is becoming the norm (Cyber jihadists , anonymous , botnets are for sale in china, etc..). States are left scrambling for a solution: Is it an Internet kill switch?
A key take away comment for me was mentioned by Mel Cappe: in the tension between those who see the need for a safe and secure Internet and those pushing for a more open internet, the former have a clear value proposition that is understood by politicians and lay citizens: the internet can be a dangerous place where terrorists and pedophiles roam, it therefore needs State intervention for law and order purposes. Do advocates of a more open internet have a similar, simple, value proposition? It isn’t clear.
A key take away comment for me was mentioned by Mel Cappe: in the tension between those who see the need for a safe and secure Internet and those pushing for a more open internet, the former have a clear value proposition that is understood by politicians and lay citizens: the internet can be a dangerous place where terrorists and pedophiles roam, it therefore needs State intervention for law and order purposes. Do advocates of a more open internet have a similar, simple, value proposition? It isn’t clear.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
To be or not to be a Tunisian Social Media revolution
The usual digital activism pundits, Zuckerman, Morozov, York, Sullivan , et al., are all commenting on their various views on the extent to which the Tunisian coup (and possibly revolution..i'll only judge it a revolution once the majority of the existing power structure is toppled, not just its head) was enabled, facilitated, catalysed, caused or driven by social media and the Internet. It's an important debate as the previous "Twitter revolution" in Iran was unsuccessful. This left many (even non-tech) experts skeptical of the power of the tools since the Iranian State had possibly more efficiently used the tools to track down activists and blur what was going on. Much of the Iranian example seemed to corroborate Morozov's principal thesis in the Net Delusion: technology benefits authoritarian States more than it does activists who are fighting them. Tunisia is different. The coup was, seemingly, successful and the Internet certainly was part of what was going on.
I don't feel there is anyway I could judge who is right in this debate, not having the kind of first hand accounts and data that would normally allow one to draw such conclusions. However, Zuckerman's view seems the most plausible, so taking an Ocham's razor approach I'll side with him. The only problem with it, is that it's kind of unsatisfying in how simple it is. Yes people are the drivers of revolutions, not tools, and yes, communication is only part of a larger eco-system of interactions, ideas, power-struggles, economic and social contexts etc..etc.. But the exciting question is Morozov's: had the protests taken place before the advent of the pervasive use of digital tools would it have been successful? (note I use "digital tools", because I think we miss the boat on laying everything at the feet of social media. A digital camera with a usb stick could be just as powerful as twitter). Although I have no evidence to base it on, I don't think so. My hunch is based in part on the interesting musings about the role of the print press during the French Revolution highlighted by Zeynep Tufekci :
"So, I think most of the people using the term “social media revolution” are using it in the sense of a material cause. As I asked on Twitter during the debate, would we call the French Revolution a printing press revolution? Surely, the invention of the press is a strong antecedent of that revolution. But also surely, that revolution was made by people, through political action. So, the printing press just defines the milieu in which the revolution took place; it is an inseparable part of the French revolution even though it is not the efficient (political uprising) or the final (establishing a republic) cause of the French revolution. But you cannot really imagine a French Revolution, of the kind that happened, without the printing press."
Back to reading the news...
I don't feel there is anyway I could judge who is right in this debate, not having the kind of first hand accounts and data that would normally allow one to draw such conclusions. However, Zuckerman's view seems the most plausible, so taking an Ocham's razor approach I'll side with him. The only problem with it, is that it's kind of unsatisfying in how simple it is. Yes people are the drivers of revolutions, not tools, and yes, communication is only part of a larger eco-system of interactions, ideas, power-struggles, economic and social contexts etc..etc.. But the exciting question is Morozov's: had the protests taken place before the advent of the pervasive use of digital tools would it have been successful? (note I use "digital tools", because I think we miss the boat on laying everything at the feet of social media. A digital camera with a usb stick could be just as powerful as twitter). Although I have no evidence to base it on, I don't think so. My hunch is based in part on the interesting musings about the role of the print press during the French Revolution highlighted by Zeynep Tufekci :
"So, I think most of the people using the term “social media revolution” are using it in the sense of a material cause. As I asked on Twitter during the debate, would we call the French Revolution a printing press revolution? Surely, the invention of the press is a strong antecedent of that revolution. But also surely, that revolution was made by people, through political action. So, the printing press just defines the milieu in which the revolution took place; it is an inseparable part of the French revolution even though it is not the efficient (political uprising) or the final (establishing a republic) cause of the French revolution. But you cannot really imagine a French Revolution, of the kind that happened, without the printing press."
Back to reading the news...
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Data overload
An article in Information Week on Eric Schmidt's talk about the primacy of mobiles caught my attention not because of the insights on mobiles, but because of his comments on information overload and one interesting fact:
"And so if you think about the information problem—interesting statistics: between sorta the birth of the world and 2003, there were five exabytes of information created—that's the total over that period. In the last bit, we create 5 exabytes every two days. "
At first I thought that the "two days" was a typo, but I'll assume Google knows what its talking about in this domain. That certainly puts into perspective the problems of data overload and dealing with data complexity.
"And so if you think about the information problem—interesting statistics: between sorta the birth of the world and 2003, there were five exabytes of information created—that's the total over that period. In the last bit, we create 5 exabytes every two days. "
At first I thought that the "two days" was a typo, but I'll assume Google knows what its talking about in this domain. That certainly puts into perspective the problems of data overload and dealing with data complexity.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Of smartphones and scooters
I quite often like to put my historian's hat back on, so I was interested in the history of the Internet that Heloise and Kathleen sent out (http://sixrevisions.com/resources/the-history-of-the-internet-in-a-nutshell/ ). As I read through it, I was reminded of how slow and torturous a road it actually was. Is it possible we might sometimes be expecting too much, too fast, from developing countries in their path to the information society? Is it also that these paths might be different but that ultimately they'll end of in pretty much the same place? Maybe, with time, those paths could be converging, or, at the very least, they might adapt more appropriately to their various contexts?
As i was thinking about this, I was struck by the analogy between the transportation and telecommunications environments, particularly as they relate to the difference between the developed and developing world. In the developed world (although I'll restrain my thoughts to North America for the sake of my argument) the transportation environment is dominated by cars and trucks, which are used for both economic and leisure purposes. Bicycles, and to a certain extent scooters, are used mainly for leisure purposes (disappointingly). In the developing world (again let's say Asia for the sake of our argument) bicycles and scooters have dominated much more of the transportation environment. (I should say I'm excluding mass transit - or public access in a way- as it doesn't really relate to my analogy for now). Bikes and scooters are also used much more for instrumental purposes, than social or leisure ones, in the developed world. Cars and trucks aren't as prevalent there, seeing as they simply aren't affordable enough (yet). Some of you will now see where I'm going with this. Is it fair to say that there is an analogy with the situation with mobiles and PCs and the path to (internet) connectivity? In the telecommunications environment, replace car with PC, bicycle with phone and scooter with smartphone and I see interesting similarities. You can even extend the analogy to thinking about a super-highway - that essentially refers to the Internet (yes, rather than a "series of tubes"..), with dirt paths being low bandwidth GSM/CDMA networks.
Bicycles (mobiles) need to ride on dirt paths, and can't access the super-highway (Internet). You still have recurring costs related to accessing the dirt path, but it's much cheaper than the super-highway. Of course the bikes on dirt paths don't go to all the fabulous places that the super-highway takes you to, and you can't carry as much as cars, so there are much smaller scales of benefits compared to a car, but the scale of benefits is probably commensurate with the potential of local economic opportunities.
The interesting thing is scooters (e.g. smartphones) are able to get on the superhighway but the on ramps in developing countries are prohibitively expensive and generally force you to pay by usage. Most people in developing countries can't afford the scooters or the tolls to get on superhighways, but scooters are still more affordable than cars and paying by usage is generally a more cost-effective strategy than a monthly subscription for the super-highway. Consequently, it can be expected that in the medium term there will be a lot more scooters out there, more and more of which will be traveling on the super-highway. There would be a growing number of cars in the developing world as well (especially Tata-like cheap cars - which is analogous to the OLPC, Asus, etc.) - and more people getting super-highway subscriptions, but the rate of growth would be much lower than that of scooters getting on to the super-highway through usage-tolls. The biggest problem though is that curently those who own the dirt roads (i.e mobile operators) control the tolls and decide how much it will cost to access the superhighway and attempt to control how you will experience it. (The best solution to this is generally that there be a greater number of toll operators who need to compete with each other for the use of their on-ramp, but also, potentially, that the government step in to regulate toll operators.)
What's also interesting is that as time goes by there is less and less distinction between scooters (e.g. smartphones) and cars (eg. PCs), as Tuk Tuks and other three wheeled scooters seem to suggest. Some of the scooters are gaining in speed and power, which makes them quite effective on the super-highway.
Now I've certainly taken this analogy too far and have obviously over-simplified the different environments, but I still think there are potential lessons for us:
- in the transportation environment we don't try to suggest that nations in the developing world should build a super-highway before they have an adequate network of lesser roads and paths
- the decision to purchase and use a bicycle, scooter or car is based on many complex decisions, based on costs, incentives and sometimes simply uniqueness. Why for example is Burkina Faso full of bicycles, Benin full of scooters and Senegal full of cars? I assume the difference is due to costs (differences in affordability and purchasing power); incentives (regulations, infrastructure, government programs, etc..) and uniqueness (cultural factors, etc..). The same can probably be said of the choice to purchase mobiles, PCs or anything in between. Decisions will be based on those three sets of factors which, in turn, will create very different environments in different countries (think for example of the difference between the Philippines and its mobile omnipresence and that of Indonesia and its - relative - PC/wifi prevelance)
- It still isn't clear that there are more than marginal benefits to having a car, as compared to a scooter in the developing world. I think the same can be said of the difference between the benefits of a PC and a smartphone. The same can be extrapolated, in my view, from the difference between access to the Internet and access to mobile telephony in the developing world. The case has not yet been made that the economic and social benefits of the Internet, as compared to those of mobile networks, warrant the added costs. Economists might suggest that developing country citizens have chosen quite rationally to spend money on the tool they felt was most appropriate for their needs - the mobile - (I'm not sure that's right, but it's certainly a possible hypothesis).
Bike indicators: http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/indicators/C48/
As i was thinking about this, I was struck by the analogy between the transportation and telecommunications environments, particularly as they relate to the difference between the developed and developing world. In the developed world (although I'll restrain my thoughts to North America for the sake of my argument) the transportation environment is dominated by cars and trucks, which are used for both economic and leisure purposes. Bicycles, and to a certain extent scooters, are used mainly for leisure purposes (disappointingly). In the developing world (again let's say Asia for the sake of our argument) bicycles and scooters have dominated much more of the transportation environment. (I should say I'm excluding mass transit - or public access in a way- as it doesn't really relate to my analogy for now). Bikes and scooters are also used much more for instrumental purposes, than social or leisure ones, in the developed world. Cars and trucks aren't as prevalent there, seeing as they simply aren't affordable enough (yet). Some of you will now see where I'm going with this. Is it fair to say that there is an analogy with the situation with mobiles and PCs and the path to (internet) connectivity? In the telecommunications environment, replace car with PC, bicycle with phone and scooter with smartphone and I see interesting similarities. You can even extend the analogy to thinking about a super-highway - that essentially refers to the Internet (yes, rather than a "series of tubes"..), with dirt paths being low bandwidth GSM/CDMA networks.
Bicycles (mobiles) need to ride on dirt paths, and can't access the super-highway (Internet). You still have recurring costs related to accessing the dirt path, but it's much cheaper than the super-highway. Of course the bikes on dirt paths don't go to all the fabulous places that the super-highway takes you to, and you can't carry as much as cars, so there are much smaller scales of benefits compared to a car, but the scale of benefits is probably commensurate with the potential of local economic opportunities.
The interesting thing is scooters (e.g. smartphones) are able to get on the superhighway but the on ramps in developing countries are prohibitively expensive and generally force you to pay by usage. Most people in developing countries can't afford the scooters or the tolls to get on superhighways, but scooters are still more affordable than cars and paying by usage is generally a more cost-effective strategy than a monthly subscription for the super-highway. Consequently, it can be expected that in the medium term there will be a lot more scooters out there, more and more of which will be traveling on the super-highway. There would be a growing number of cars in the developing world as well (especially Tata-like cheap cars - which is analogous to the OLPC, Asus, etc.) - and more people getting super-highway subscriptions, but the rate of growth would be much lower than that of scooters getting on to the super-highway through usage-tolls. The biggest problem though is that curently those who own the dirt roads (i.e mobile operators) control the tolls and decide how much it will cost to access the superhighway and attempt to control how you will experience it. (The best solution to this is generally that there be a greater number of toll operators who need to compete with each other for the use of their on-ramp, but also, potentially, that the government step in to regulate toll operators.)
What's also interesting is that as time goes by there is less and less distinction between scooters (e.g. smartphones) and cars (eg. PCs), as Tuk Tuks and other three wheeled scooters seem to suggest. Some of the scooters are gaining in speed and power, which makes them quite effective on the super-highway.
Now I've certainly taken this analogy too far and have obviously over-simplified the different environments, but I still think there are potential lessons for us:
- in the transportation environment we don't try to suggest that nations in the developing world should build a super-highway before they have an adequate network of lesser roads and paths
- the decision to purchase and use a bicycle, scooter or car is based on many complex decisions, based on costs, incentives and sometimes simply uniqueness. Why for example is Burkina Faso full of bicycles, Benin full of scooters and Senegal full of cars? I assume the difference is due to costs (differences in affordability and purchasing power); incentives (regulations, infrastructure, government programs, etc..) and uniqueness (cultural factors, etc..). The same can probably be said of the choice to purchase mobiles, PCs or anything in between. Decisions will be based on those three sets of factors which, in turn, will create very different environments in different countries (think for example of the difference between the Philippines and its mobile omnipresence and that of Indonesia and its - relative - PC/wifi prevelance)
- It still isn't clear that there are more than marginal benefits to having a car, as compared to a scooter in the developing world. I think the same can be said of the difference between the benefits of a PC and a smartphone. The same can be extrapolated, in my view, from the difference between access to the Internet and access to mobile telephony in the developing world. The case has not yet been made that the economic and social benefits of the Internet, as compared to those of mobile networks, warrant the added costs. Economists might suggest that developing country citizens have chosen quite rationally to spend money on the tool they felt was most appropriate for their needs - the mobile - (I'm not sure that's right, but it's certainly a possible hypothesis).
Bike indicators: http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/indicators/C48/
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Authorship dump
a repository of my own writing on these issues...
Link to book:
Elder, L. and Clarke, M., "Past Present and Future: experiences and lessons from telehealth projects " in Open Medicine, 2007 - openmedicine.ca Vol 1, No 3 (2007
Elder, L. and Clarke, M., "Experiences and lessons learnt from telemedicine projects supported by IDRC" in TELEHEALTH IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD
Edited by Richard Wootton, Nivritti G. Patil, Richard E. Scott, and Kendall Ho
Royal Society of Medicine Press/IDRC 2009
Rashid, AT, and Elder, L. "Mobile Phones and development: An Analysis of IDRC Supported Projects" in EJISDC, 2009 - ejisdc.org, Vol 36 (2009)
Elder, L. "Baraka Telecentre : owned by the community...it lasts!" in Sustainability of CMCs
Alfonso Gumucio-Dagron and Hezekiel Dlamini, UNESCO, 2005
Elder, L. "ICTs and African Communities in Uganda and Senegal: Meeting their Expectations?"
in Connect World, Article in Africa and the Middle East I 2003 .
Upcoming chapter, in Mobile Information Communication Technologies Adoption in Developing Countries: Effects and Implications
Harmen, J., Rashid, AT. Elder, L. "Use of mobile phones in education: Perspectives and evidence from Asia "
Upcoming Forum Article in Information Technology and International Development Journal ,
Smith, M. and Elder, L. " ‘Open Development’: ICT mediated social innovations transforming the developing world "
| Title | At the crossroads: ICT policy making in East Africa |
| Authors | Florence Ebam Etta, Laurent Elder, International Development Research Centre (Canada) |
| Editors | Florence Ebam Etta, Laurent Elder |
| Edition | illustrated |
| Publisher | East African Educational Publishers, 2005 |
| ISBN | 9966254390, 9789966254399 |
| Length |
|
Including: "Chapter 16. The Uganda Knowledge and Information Society: Early Lessons from ICT Projects"
David Obot, Fredrick Kintu & Laurent Elder
Elder, L. and Clarke, M., "Past Present and Future: experiences and lessons from telehealth projects " in Open Medicine, 2007 - openmedicine.ca Vol 1, No 3 (2007
Elder, L. and Clarke, M., "Experiences and lessons learnt from telemedicine projects supported by IDRC" in TELEHEALTH IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD
Edited by Richard Wootton, Nivritti G. Patil, Richard E. Scott, and Kendall Ho
Royal Society of Medicine Press/IDRC 2009
Rashid, AT, and Elder, L. "Mobile Phones and development: An Analysis of IDRC Supported Projects" in EJISDC, 2009 - ejisdc.org, Vol 36 (2009)
Elder, L. "Baraka Telecentre : owned by the community...it lasts!" in Sustainability of CMCs
Alfonso Gumucio-Dagron and Hezekiel Dlamini, UNESCO, 2005
Elder, L. "ICTs and African Communities in Uganda and Senegal: Meeting their Expectations?"
in Connect World, Article in Africa and the Middle East I 2003 .
Upcoming chapter, in Mobile Information Communication Technologies Adoption in Developing Countries: Effects and Implications
Harmen, J., Rashid, AT. Elder, L. "Use of mobile phones in education: Perspectives and evidence from Asia "
Upcoming Forum Article in Information Technology and International Development Journal ,
Smith, M. and Elder, L. " ‘Open Development’: ICT mediated social innovations transforming the developing world "
Monday, April 13, 2009
Words, words, more words and acronyms
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...
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...
Sunday, April 12, 2009
What's in a word continued
The results of the tag cloud below are interesting: they essentially show that "information" "communication" and "technology" are the most prominent words in the "common" field, which actually justifies using "ICT" as the principal concept. So much for trying to uncover new words to explain a field and concepts :)
Next step will be doing the same exercise with actual tags from the journals and then try to chart the evolution of language through time.
Next step will be doing the same exercise with actual tags from the journals and then try to chart the evolution of language through time.
What's in a word
As I've been going through the DOAJ to look at common and popular concepts around information systems, computer science technology, openness etc.., some things were quite apparent
- computer science is by far the most important "technology" in the DOAJ, representing 141 journals in the "technology and engineering" section. the next largest section is "general technology" at 51 and the third "Electrical and Nuclear Engineering" (28 journals). Now this could of course be explained by the fact that fields related to the computer sciences were often involved with open access activities, but I still think this says something about the fact that computer science dominates discourse in the technology field.
- Within the social sciences, "media and communication" has a respectable 62 journals, and "library and information science" has 93, both of which are in the middle of the pack. By far the largest category in the social sciences is "Education", which likely has quite a few IT related topics.
- Even in the general technology and general social sciences section, numerous journals relate to information and communication (haven't checked if there is double counting though)
applied broadcasting business communication computer control culture cyberpsychology data development digital education ejournalist electronic emerging engineering informatics information innovation intelligence interaction international internet journal knowledge learning library literacy management mathematics media multimedia networks online open organizational practice problems property research science society software studies systems technical technology telecommunications transdiscipline virtual
created at TagCrowd.com
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Origin of ICT4D
Interesting discussion on our ICT4D Futures list, with regards to the origin of the term "ICT4D". I must admit I was curious and not quite sold on some of the suggestions so I started digging around. Part of the problem is that the term "ICT" itself isn't that old and seems to stem from the US (although I'd love to hear form those who'd know more about this), possibly from the educational field ( see for instance: http://www.maximise-ict.co.uk/ICT-01.htm ) through a study by David Blunkett (UK education secretary as far as I can tell) that seems to have first coined the term. I can't seem to find the original report however, as that would help to pinpoint the date for the creation of the term "ICT" that would then help triangulate when we could start looking at the term "ICT4D".
More browsing led to the realisation that GK 97 was all about knowledge or information for development but never a mention of "ICT4D". Neither do early Acacia and Bellanet documents. My hunch however is that many mentioned "ICT for development" but maybe not the acronym "ICT4D". Was IDRC the first?
To be continued as I obssess over this
Thursday, December 4, 2008
The IGF
Well it sure wasn't Rio, and from accounts it wasn't Athens either. The 2008 Hyderabadi version of the Internet Governance Forum has not met expectations. Maybe I was spoiled by Rio (who wouldn't be?), or Mobile Active; maybe it was the Mumbai bombings that led to a good number of delegations and participants canceling; or maybe it was the fact that Indians didn't show up (or weren't let in?). Whatever the reason may be, most people felt Hyderabad lacked the requisite "it" crowd, the engaging panellists and good connectivity. I'm afraid to say that even GK3 seemed more innovative.
Is this a symptom of a larger problem with the global Internet space or was this something related to local conditions and exceptions? I'd suggest the latter, and hence would still recommend that we might want to look at Cairo as an important venue for sharing knowledge on Information society and development related issues. However more effort needs to go into ensuring panels are chalk full of compelling speakers and evidence of what has happened since WSIS and, more importantly, what could be done. We should also engage with organisers to ensure unconference principles are built in, because there is general fatigue with IT ministers blathering on about nothing for hours.
Is there anything I've retained about the the key issues that needed to be discussed here amongst the ITU, ICANN and govt delegations? No. I'll read a few blogs to get the gist, but coming here I would've liked to have felt I was in the thick of things.
As always with these conferences, the opportunity to network with partners, pitch new ideas, follow-up on old ones, is the most important value of coming here.
In general, I'm disappointed, but at least we had all of our good and useful events before IGF and that might be the most important lesson.
Friday, August 29, 2008
ICT and Development studies: Towards Development 2.0
One of my colleagues shared this paper from Mark Thompson in 2007 looking at the importance of better understanding the relationship between ICTs (although generally defined as Web 2.0 type processes) and development studies. It also looks at how the lack of integration between the two is inhibiting each other's success.
I thought the paper was interesting considering it comes at a period when Heeks has been pushing this idea as well, not to mention larger bodies such as the ICTD conference circuit (the fact that there is a debate between the notions of "ICT4d" - considered a technologically deterministic, almost normative notion and "ICTD" which takes a neutral approach to the relationship between technology and development is also telling). This tension is at the heart of our own programming (or at least in my own head), as we want, on the one hand, to foster critique of the field (with the goal of ensuring a body of knowledge exists that helps to inform us on the conditions necessary for interventions to succeed), but also want to foster positive change and test innovations (advocating or intervening for positive change should always be based on evidence, however in the case of issues related to new technologies evidence doesn't always exist). One of the ways of dealing with that tension is ensuring that research and interventions are grounded or aware of prevalent theoretical constructs and frameworks. This is essentially what both Heeks and Thompson argue.
The interesting argument from Thompson, is that, in his view there is a sense of urgency. One the one hand, ICT investments and activities are growing tremendously in developing countries (think mobiles) and yet development researchers haven't fully been able to appreciate their impact. This, in turn, means that ICT interventions are often devoid of thinking about broader issues related to the political economy or other power dynamics. Moreover, Thompson sees Web 2.0 processes as an enormous potential for traditional development thinking, as it can have an incidence on each of the key debates (participation, critical modernism, clinical economics, new institutional theory).
I question some of his enthusiasm for Web 2.0/KM/KS processes, especially considering some of failed experiences with OKN and other larger user-generated content/social production type activities, but mobiles certainly put a potential new spin to it. the most interesting point for me, is how neatly ICTs fit into many of the current theories of development:
AU: Mark Thompson
TI: Ict and development studies: Towards development 2.0
SO: Journal of International Development
VL: 20
NO: 6
PG: 821-835
YR: 2008
CP: Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
ON: 1099-1328
PN: 0954-1748
AD: University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
DOI: 10.1002/jid.1498
US: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jid.1498
I thought the paper was interesting considering it comes at a period when Heeks has been pushing this idea as well, not to mention larger bodies such as the ICTD conference circuit (the fact that there is a debate between the notions of "ICT4d" - considered a technologically deterministic, almost normative notion and "ICTD" which takes a neutral approach to the relationship between technology and development is also telling). This tension is at the heart of our own programming (or at least in my own head), as we want, on the one hand, to foster critique of the field (with the goal of ensuring a body of knowledge exists that helps to inform us on the conditions necessary for interventions to succeed), but also want to foster positive change and test innovations (advocating or intervening for positive change should always be based on evidence, however in the case of issues related to new technologies evidence doesn't always exist). One of the ways of dealing with that tension is ensuring that research and interventions are grounded or aware of prevalent theoretical constructs and frameworks. This is essentially what both Heeks and Thompson argue.
The interesting argument from Thompson, is that, in his view there is a sense of urgency. One the one hand, ICT investments and activities are growing tremendously in developing countries (think mobiles) and yet development researchers haven't fully been able to appreciate their impact. This, in turn, means that ICT interventions are often devoid of thinking about broader issues related to the political economy or other power dynamics. Moreover, Thompson sees Web 2.0 processes as an enormous potential for traditional development thinking, as it can have an incidence on each of the key debates (participation, critical modernism, clinical economics, new institutional theory).
I question some of his enthusiasm for Web 2.0/KM/KS processes, especially considering some of failed experiences with OKN and other larger user-generated content/social production type activities, but mobiles certainly put a potential new spin to it. the most interesting point for me, is how neatly ICTs fit into many of the current theories of development:
- "participation": no brainer, Thompson could have added hundreds of other examples, from people power in the Philippines to strengthening social capital and agency
- critical modernism: the facilitation of participation evidently leads to the facilitation of participatory development experimentation, that one can continually learn from;
- clinical economics: the weakest of the arguments in my view, especially considering that so much of the evidence points towards minimal instrumental use of new technologies, like mobiles (notably from Donner, who he strangely cites as positive evidence for his thesis)
- new institutional theory: the ability of technology to be disruptive and change the way people work has an incredible effect on power relationships and institutions
AU: Mark Thompson
TI: Ict and development studies: Towards development 2.0
SO: Journal of International Development
VL: 20
NO: 6
PG: 821-835
YR: 2008
CP: Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
ON: 1099-1328
PN: 0954-1748
AD: University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
DOI: 10.1002/jid.1498
US: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jid.1498
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)