The Accultured Robot

The promise of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) has been excitedly promoted as a successful new tool for development throughout the world. Particularly in India, state and national governments have moved quickly to launch programs that harness mobile phone and internet technologies to benefit the millions of people living in poverty. However, the proper use of ICT in development is far more complicated than simply outfitting rural villages with new technology. Such gadgetry is useless without a careful plan that addresses the purpose for which the technology is to be used and how users might either be empowered or excluded in the process.

Specifically, organisations considering the use of ICT in a project need to realise that ICT is much more effective at bettering people’s lives when it is used in a local context to meet another social need. In addition, the use of this new technology needs to be as inclusive as possible, which requires an understanding of the interplay between ICT and social capital. The most promising and appropriate way to meet these goals is through the use of a skilled intermediary to ensure that those without the money, experience or education to use the technology directly are still provided with useful information. 

This article will present some of the current literature on ICT in development, and will particularly investigate the uses of social capital in the context of several case studies within India. While there is no lack of literature discussing ICT in development, the focus has long been stuck on the specific technology being used as well as an assumption that development will occur automatically once ICT is widely available. In reaction to this viewpoint, most recent literature instead puts the focus on a people-centred approach that addresses a specific social need (MSSRF 2005). This literature suggests that it is important to develop a plan for involving the intended beneficiaries and also to be aware of the assumptions being made about a lack of digital technology. In this section I will look at how ICT, in development, is perceived around the world followed by a look at the role that social capital literature plays in understanding the effects of ICT in rural development. Finally I will highlight some of the issues regarding exclusion that result from the implementation of ICT, as well as a handful of case studies of projects in India that represent how ICT is contextualised to local needs.

ICT and the digital divide

Towards the end of the 1990s, the term ‘digital divide’ quickly grew to symbolise a type of global disparity between the technological haves and have-nots (Keniston 2002). It also came to be synonymous with other disparities such as the global inequality between development in the North and South. The idea is that there are those with full access to digital technologies like mobile phones, computers and the internet; and others who still lack these modern tools.

However, over the decade since the term ‘digital divide’ slipped into common usage the developing world has adopted technologies, like the mobile phone, with a speed surpassing even that of the developed world. In light of these changes, the notion of a digital divide seems less accurate and Warschauer (2003: 199) suggests that it makes more sense to speak about ‘digital inequality’ where the focus is on the “technical means, autonomy, skill, social support and purpose” with which people use ICT.

ICT approaches, therefore, cannot be programs unto themselves, but must be part of an existing program (Mir & Mir 2005). ICT alone does not reduce poverty or increase social well-being. Instead, technology needs to be socially imbedded, and not seen as separate (Warschauer, 2003). Programs that use technology to meet social needs should focus on individual people instead of planning to generally expose people to ICT; this approach will ensure programs have a greater chance of making a difference in people’s lives (Warschauer 2003).

In conceptualising ICT in the developing world, it is also important not to assume that the development of this technology will follow the Western model. As has been mentioned, mobile phone use in many developing countries has taken off; yet for developing countries to catch up to developed countries in terms of broadband internet use, it will require a lengthy process of laying fibre-optic cable and making hardware upgrades that follow different economies of scale than the rapid expansion of mobile phone towers (The Economist, 2008).

There are still many hurdles to developing countries carving out their own approach to ICT. Warschauer (2003) points out that the dominance of the ASCII character system, which is incompatible with non-English characters, has dealt a setback to local-language internet use around the world; and only now are more compatible standards being established. This, along with the ‘office’ idiom of files and folders in computer operating systems which resulted from the early roots of ICT being based in America, are common hurdles for those attempting to integrate ICT into rural settings around the world (Warschauer 2003).

Another difference between the developing and developed world is the extent to which using a computer is an individual or group experience. Many users in the developing world are secondary users rather than primary users. They may have partial or negligible access to a computer, but still need a way to access the information (Parikh & Ghosh 2006). In order to address this need, software from the developed world, whose interface is only designed for a single primary user, needs to be improved. The literature suggests that innovations like audio feedback, in the case of an illiterate user, might help to bridge this gap (Parikh & Ghosh 2006). For educational purposes, a team of Microsoft researchers in India developed a system for using multiple mice, where each student would see their own colour-coded cursor on the screen (Pawar, Pal, & Toyama 2006). Interestingly, much of the software and hardware for ICT is now manufactured in developing countries like India and China, and it is certainly possible that we could see new innovations in ICTs that are more appropriate for secondary users in the future (Poh-Kam, 2002).

Social Capital

The concept of ‘communication’ in ICT can be viewed as part of the literature on social capital and development. Increased and improved communication is tied to people’s social capital in many ways. ICTs allow people to reach out beyond their ‘group’ or physical location – something that is vital to economic development in poor communities. Woolcock (1998) describes this as a need for a balance between intensive intra-community links and extra-community links in order for long-term development to succeed. That is, people must have equally strong ties to their own community, as well as to those outside their circle. One example of an ICT tool to build extra-community links is the India-based Honey Bee Network (www.sristi.org/cms/en/our_network). The purpose of the network is to spread local knowledge information ‘like pollen’. Users share innovations, anything from homemade insecticides to tips for developing the best cauliflower varieties, and in return get full attribution on the website as well as any feedback that comes through the network. This is social capital in action.

In addition to creating new extra-community links, it is also possible that ICT can strengthen weakened intra-community links. For example, the introduction of ICT can allow migrants to keep in touch with families and maintain bonds that might have otherwise deteriorated over time. ICT also shows new divisions in groups based on how its benefits are perceived. In India, it was found that many youth view ICT differently then adults; youth saw it primarily as a tool for getting ahead in school, finding jobs in the city and contributing to the national pride (Ezer 2006). To the new generation, ICT promises more personal benefits whereas economic development at the village level, which would benefit the whole community, is not such an obvious use. This research indicates that the youth in much of India are more focused on creating extra-community links, or at least are not as beholden to their intra-community bonds. While this could be disruptive to traditional societies, literature suggests it is also a positive step. Warschauer (2003) explains that a greater number of weak ties are more important than a small number of stronger ties. The logic is that you have access to far more opportunities and support if you are connected to diverse groups of people.

It also needs to be noted that much of the literature on the benefits of social capital can be criticised as an overly vague “analytical sack of potatoes” (Cummings, Heeks, & Huysman 2006: 578). It is simply too easy to imply benefits without clearly understanding what is actually going on in the community. In regards to social capital and the effects of ICT, there needs to be more rigorous monitoring and evaluation (M&E) before one can state for certain that the benefits of ICT outweigh the costs (Cecchini 2003).

ICT and inclusion

The introduction of ICT in a project, along with the selection of partnering groups or community organisations, frequently excludes many of the poorest members of the village who are typically not consulted (Cleaver 2005). An understanding of the Indian social dynamic is necessary to further explore how the introduction of ICT affects society. Increasing the availability of information to a community, a goal of most ICT projects, brings power relations into play as ‘information’ can often be looked at as synonymous with power (Ife & Tesoriero 2006). In India, where immense bonding capital is structurally visible in the form of castes, it is likely that those of lower castes will lose out when groups with more power can lock up limited access to ICT. Therefore, in order to ensure that lower castes, and especially those who are illiterate or unskilled, are not excluded; access to ICT needs to be mediated by someone familiar with technology as well as the needs of the community (MSSRF 2005).

The need for intermediation in ICT is both a measure to prevent exclusion as well as a reality in much of India where computer use is often a communal experience. Compared to China, which in 2007 boasted 162 million internet users, India with a similar population only has around 60 million users (Central Intelligence Agency 2008). The implication is that there are relatively few internet-connected computers in India and consequently a small number of intermediaries through which information can pass. Parikh and Ghosh (2006: 32) observe that in the developing world computer use is a “complex relationship between technology, multiple users, indirect stakeholders, observers, and bystanders.” Given that a shared experience of intermediated access to ICT is already common in the developing world, those intermediaries will need to provide more unfiltered information in order for the process to be truly inclusive.

Case studies from India

India is a hotbed for rural development programs that focus on ICT, and Andhra Pradesh is no exception. When looking at poverty in Andhra Pradesh, Krishna (2006: 271) outlines the factors pushing people into poverty and drawing them back out:

While ill health and high healthcare costs, social and customary expenses, high-interest private debt, and drought are associated most often with falling into poverty, diversification of income sources and land improvement are most closely related with escape.

Not surprisingly, one can find many programs in Andhra Pradesh that deal with agricultural improvements, income diversification and lowering borrowing costs.

Among the most widely reported on programs is e-Choupal (www.echoupal.com), part of ITC Limited, which attempts to connect villages as part of an alternative supply system for crops through the use of internet kiosks and agricultural advisors in each participating village. Another popular initiative in Andhra Pradesh is Ikisan (www.ikisan.com), a similar industry-run network of staffed kiosks that shares knowledge and promotes the use of the company’s products – in this case, Nagarjuna fertilizers and chemicals (Rao 2007). Both of these projects are largely associated with improvements to agriculture that increase agricultural income. As they are both for-profit businesses, it’s also important to realise that whenever there is a larger partner involved, there is usually an outside interest that could potentially limit the goals of other non-profit partners (Warschauer 2003). In these examples it’s important to note that ICT is primarily being used to lower transaction costs rather then empower local farmers (Rao 2007).

The availability of ICT can also serve as an engine for new jobs in the village. Some programs offer services tied to information kiosks, such as an initiative by Hewlett-Packard (HP) that focuses on diversifying personal income and the local economy as a whole (Rao 2007). In this model, internet kiosks fitted out with internet and printing capability serve as a hub for entrepreneurs by generating wealth through offering ICT services rather than encouraging the sale of agricultural inputs. Local entrepreneurs and established businesses tend to benefit the most in these scenarios (Cecchini 2003). One caution here is that HP asserts ownership over their facilities, while other similar schemes turn over full control to local entrepreneurs (Rao 2007).

Other players in the world of ICT for rural development include eSeva (www.esevaonline.com) and aAqua (http://aaqua.persistent.co.in), which attempt to increase access to information without specifically building a local component or profit-making scheme. eSeva is designed to improve access to government forms and information in Andhra Pradesh (part of the e-government movement). aAqua (almost All questions usually answered) is a forum where experts from all over India answer farmer’s questions. Replies are often incredibly detailed with photos and step by step instructions on how to do everything from make a rose cutting to assessing the advantages of Boer Goat farming. The site is also available in three languages (English, Hindi and Marathi), making it available to much of India. These initiatives clearly rely on users having their own ability to gain access to the internet, but as an approach to provide unbiased information would seem to be more empowering.

There are numerous case studies focusing on the effects that ICTs have on the intended recipients of a project, but there are also case studies regarding effects on the implementing agencies themselves. In the case of Rohde (2004), he looked at NGOs in Iran that used ICTs to greatly increase and strengthen their NGO networks. It was found that by embracing ICT, through a network of local NGOs, organisations were able to build up social trust and common practices that helped them to succeed (Rohde 2004). This in essence is increasing the bridging capital of the organisations themselves and shows the importance of ICT in developing the administration process as well as the implementation.

 

Bibliography

Alsop, R. G., Khandelwal, R., Gilbert, E. H., & Farrington, J. (1996). The Human Capital Dimension of Collaboration among Government, NGOs, and Farm Families: Comparative Advantage, Complications, and Observations-from an Indian Case. Agriculture and Human Values , 13 (2), 3-12.

Cecchini, S. (2003). Tapping ICT to reduce poverty in rural India. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine , 22 (2), 20-27.

Central Intelligence Agency. (2008, June 10). The World Factbook. Retrieved June 17, 2008 from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

Cleaver, F. (2005). The inequality of social capital and the reproduction of chronic poverty. World Development , 33 (6), 893-906 .

Cummings, S., Heeks, R., & Huysman, M. (2006). Knowledge and learning in online networks in development: a social-capital perspective. Development in Practice , 16 (6), 570-586.

Deshingkar, P., Johnson, C., & Farrington, J. (2005). State Transfers to the Poor and Back: the Case of The Food-For-Work Program in India. World Development , 3 (4), 575-591.

Ezer, J. (2006). Gandhi’s Third Assassination: Information and Communications Technology Education in India. Information Technology for Development , 12 (3), 201-212.

Hammond, A. (2001, March/April). Digitally Empowered Development. Foreign Affairs , 1-8.

Ife, J., & Tesoriero, F. (2006). Community Development: community based alternatives in an age of globalisation. French Forest: Pearson Education Australia.

Keniston, K. (2002). Grassroots ICT Projects in India: Some Preliminary Hypotheses. ASCI JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT , 31 (1&2), 1-9.

Krishna, A. (2006). Pathways Out of and Into Poverty in 36 Villages of Andhra Pradesh, India. World Development , 34 (2), 271-288.

Madon, S. (1999). International NGOs: networking, information flows and learning. Journal of Strategic Information Systems , 8 (3), 251-261.

Mir, R., & Mir, A. (2005). Catalysis, Not Leapfrog: An Institutionalist Argument for a Limited Role of ICTs in India’s Development. Asian Business & Management , 4, 411-429.

Molony, T. (2006). ‘I Don’t Trust the Phone; It Always Lies’: Trust and Information and Communication Technologies in Tanzanian Micro- and Small Enterprises. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Information Technologies and International Development , 3 (4), 67-83.

MSSRF. (2005, 1 1). Toolkit for setting up Rural Knowledge Centres. Retrieved January 27, 2008 from MS Swaminathan Research Foundation: http://www.mssrf-nva.org/publications/Toolkit-VKC-2005.pdf

Parikh, T., & Ghosh, K. (2006). Understanding and Designing for Intermediated Information Tasks in India. IEEE Pervasive Computing , 5 (2), 32-39.

Pawar, U. S., Pal, J., & Toyama, K. (2006, December 10). Multiple Mice for Computers in Education in Developing Countries. Retrieved June 18, 2008 from technology and infrastructre for emerging regions: http://tier.cs.berkeley.edu/docs/ict4d06/multiple_mice-jp.pdf

Poh-Kam, W. (2002). ICT production and diffusion in Asia Digital dividends or digital divide? Information Economics and Policy , 14, 167-187.

Rao, N. (2007). A framework for implementing information and communication technologies in agricultural development in India. Technological Forecasting & Social Change , 74, 491-518.

Shankar Rural Development Foundation. (2007, October 13). Chilver Village Profile. Hyderabad, A.P., India.

The Economist. (2008, February 22). Bringing the poor online. Retrieved March 31, 2008 from Economist.com: http://www.economist.com/daily/columns/techview/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10748746&fsrc=nwl

Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion : rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Woolcock, M. (1998). Social Capital and Economic Development: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis and Policy Framework. Theory and Society , 27 (2), 151-208.

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 18th, 2008 at 2:22 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.