ICTs and leapfrogging development

The end of the OLPC project?

OLPC is making a big mistake by considering including Windows on its laptops. In this BBC News article, Negroponte is quoted as saying,

"We are in the learning business and what the operating system is underneath is less germane"

Hogwash! The openness of the underlying system is an extremely important factor given what we have been told about the aims of the laptop project. The whole project was supposed to be firmly based on Papert's constructionist theory. Running a closed proprietary system (and the inevitable software that goes with it) entirely defeats this purpose. If Windows is an included OS on the OLPC laptop the nature of the project completely changes.

The problems that OLPC are facing are not because they don't have Windows. They are due to the fact that they have utterly failed to get potential buyers to buy into the theoretical underpinnings of the project and the goals that they suggest (hardly surprising - I don't think they've really tried). People that ask for an OLPC laptop with Windows are asking for something entirely different than what OLPC initially set out to produce. If OLPC goes through with the Windows-ization of their laptops, it's just not the same project as they set out with.

Then there is the matter of cost. Microsoft may be willing to donate Windows to OLPC so that OLPC's selling price isn't effected but only because they hope to recover it elsewhere. That's just how business in the proprietary software world works. The cost of computing in general (e.g. upgrades and future choices resulting from computing=Windows indoctrination) will be higher in the long term.

Finally, a couple of links to interesting articles on the BBC web by a reporter that had his child try out an OLPC laptop running open source software and an Intel Classmates laptop running Windows. I think this speaks for itself.

OLPC laptop with open source software
Windows based Intel Classmate

Leapfrogging and technology diffusion

The focus of the World Bank's "Global Economic Prospects" this year is "Technology diffusion in the developing world". Not surprisingly, this has generated a lot of discussion about the "leapfrogging" concept, i.e. accelerating development through the adoption of cheap new technologies, as evidenced by recent articles in the Economist (and here) and on various blogs. Judging from these commentaries, the new report has cast a shadow of doubt on the whole leapfrogging approach to development. Although mobile phones remain the posterchild of leapfrogging development, they seem to be something of an anomaly. Other information and communication technologies (ICTs), especially computers, have not had as much of an impact (or maybe just not as noticeable an impact). This is largely blamed on the lack of communications and power infrastructure in developing regions which limits the useability of computers. I would suggest that many of these criticisms reflect an unfounded technological determinism and are based on a very limited view of the relationship between ICTs and society in that they overemphasize the "leapfrogging" and technology aspect and ignore the "leapfrogging" and development aspect.

Many efforts to introduce and diffuse ICTs, computers in particular, in developing countries assume that ICTs have become well-defined tools with well-defined roles and "appropriate" interfaces suited to those roles, and therefore, a "tried and true" "westernized" ideal of these technologies are promoted. In fact, there is little evidence to support such assumptions. In the past few decades computer interfaces have changed dramatically and existing metaphors (esp. the desktop metaphor) become increasingly unsuitable as computers have taken on roles that may have been somewhat unexpected by mainstream users ca. 10-15 years ago, ex. social networking, vehicles for personal commentary, media centers, etc. It would seem more reasonable to say that computers have served as a flexible platform that each generation of users has been able to shape to meet its own needs and expectations. What's more, these types of changes, or expansions, of the roles of computers have become increasingly rapid as their use has become more widespread. So, why the tendency to expect new users in developing regions to embrace technology presented in a manner so far removed from the experience of others? I think it may be, at least in part, due to a tendency to focus on anticipated general results of widespread diffusion of computers rather than focusing on the way things are done with computers and what is done with them.

From an educational point of view there are a few notable trends that can be identified where computers have achieved considerable diffusion (this is not to be taken as a claim that computers in education have been a raging success). Over the last four decades, the most notable impact that computers have had in a very general sense is obviously that the flow of information has increased, is more diverse, and has become more rapid. Over the same period, changes in thinking about education have corresponded with the impact that computers have had such that there is now a greater trend toward individual-based learning, constructivism and lifelong learning. This makes perfect sense when we consider the ways that use and manipulation of information flows has developed. For example, increased information flows have challenged existing notions of "truth" and we now generally accept that even seemingly well grounded scientific "truths" may be more relative to social and cultural norms than was previously assumed. This has become one of the primary justifications for individual-based and constructive learning, i.e. that "truth" is, at least in part, subject to individual conceptualizations and understandings of the elements involved. This in turn has underlined the importance of lifelong learning, which has evolved into a concept that not only encourages continuous learning, but also acknowledges that learning is an inherent aspect of human life, i.e. we are always learning and what, where and how we learn affects the way we internalise information that we receive in formal and non-formal interactions (I take this to be the gist of the Delors' report's definition of learning as "lifelong, life-wide and life-deep").

ICTs didn't change education overnight. We can identify trends, as I've done above, and in hindsight it may seem to us that the impact of ICTs was rapid and dramatic. But, I think that this is mostly because they have been very effectively rationalised, i.e. they have subtly changed whole conceptual frameworks, which in turn bounces back to effect ICTs. So, to get back to leapfrogging, do we introduce ICTs to promote novel forms of social interaction that may accelerate development or do we highlight the aspects of social interaction that may accelerate development and introduce ICTs to facilitate these? The ICT for development agenda is commonly referred to as ICT4D, but I'm going to make a distinction here and refer to the former path described above as ICT2D, i.e. ICT to develop - the assumption being that ICTs will spur on development, and the latter path I will refer to as ICT&D, i.e. ICT and development - ICTs can augment other development initiatives.

The question I raise above is not one that I am prepared to answer. But, I think that ICT2D carries a risk of introducing ICTs that are not relevant to the existing social fabric in the community involved because, at any point in time, technologies tend to reflect the societal values from which they emerge, and current ICTs have primarily emerged from western societies (obvious examples that come to mind are initiatives that are based on the "we need Windows" assumption). Therefore, outcomes ranging from total failure to diffuse the technology to cultural homogenization would hardly be surprising. However, ICT&D would launch ICTs in an environment where there may already be a perceived need for the types and levels of communication and information exchange that ICTs can provide, making for a more "organic" integration of the technologies into existing societal structures (examples would include initiatives in countries where they already have well educated computer scientists, like in Estonia and India). ICT&D is no less a potential "leapfrogging" path than ICT2D even though the diffusion of the technology itself may be somewhat delayed because it seeks to accelerate development in the same way as the former. The problem is that ICT2D is undeniably the easier to implemented quickly and progress can be easily measured by simpling counting cell phones and computers, measuring fiber optic cables, etc. (whatever that's supposed to tell us about levels of development...). I think it is this "easier" path that is usually envisioned in regards to leapfrogging development. In light of recent experiences we might want to take a better look at the other path.

References for Millennium Declaration Analysis Series

I have received several requests to post references referred to in my so-called "Millennium Declaration Analysis Series" which I link to in the left margin of the main page of this blog. These lengthy articles are drafts that I produced for my MA thesis in Comparative Education. In most cases I did not include full references nor did I even include citations everywhere that they should be. These should not be taken as complete scholarly works but more as a snapshot of my thinking as I worked my way through my research and thesis process. Nevertheless, these are the most popular content on this blog. Therefore, I have decided to post here the complete list of references from my completed thesis. This should include almost all, if not all, references referred to in the draft chapters posted on this blog.

Recommendations from whom?

Last summer, Craig R. Barrett, chairman of UN GAID and chairman of the board of Intel Corp., issued a list of "Recommendations from the UN GAID Chairman". A couple of the recommendations are worthy of a slightly raised eyebrow, and perhaps even a "wink wink nudge nudge" or two.

Barrett addresses education in his first recommendation. Conspicuously missing here is any mention of students. The gist of Barret's first recommendation is "Train teachers to integrate technology into the classroom". This is pretty obvious, but he goes on to say, "Computers aren't magic, teachers are." In light of recent spats between Intel and OLPC project (esp. Intel's teacher focus vs. OLPC's kids focus), one has to wonder whether this is Barrett the UN GAID chairman or Barrett the Intel chairman speaking here. The thing is that there is an abundance of research that gives us reason to question the effectiveness of entrusting classroom teachers with the spread of ICTs. Numerous studies have shown that even after receiving special training many teachers are hesitant to fully integrate ICTs into their classroom activities. They are far less likely to attempt to do something innovative with ICTs, choosing rather to use familiar off the shelf products, the most common being word processors. Meanwhile, ICTs have been shown to be truly transformative in very unpredictable ways when put into the hands of users, even when those users have little previous experience with them. Put simply, there is plenty of evidence to support a claim that computers may be more magical than teachers.

Barrett's other point that raised my attention is his fourth recommendation, "Competitive telecommunications markets are necessary to allow for affordable Internet access." Again, this makes sense up to a certain point. Competition certainly has brought the cost down, but only if there is a market to work with. Telecommunications markets have not seemed eager to seek out new markets where the most costly parts of the infrastructure are missing. East Africa remains the most poorly connected part of the world and it doesn't seem like the telecommunications market is exactly knocking at their doors with an adequate submarine cable in hand. We even have a rather dismal situation here in Iceland. Infrastructure within Iceland is very good (except for several rural areas) but the country is connected internationally by only two submarine cables, only one of which is for commercial use. Internet access outside of Iceland is metered (except for the most expensive services and even then there are limits) and quite expensive (not to mention the all too common outages that occur when something happens to that one cable). This will gradually get better, but still, it's a few years off. If Iceland's progress in this area is any indication of what can be expected for East Africa, they'll be waiting for quite some time for the telecommunications market to get around to building up decent infrastructure there.

BBC World Service Poll on Globalisation

The BBC has published the results of a poll on attitudes toward, and experiences of, globalisation that they conducted in cooperation with GlobeScan Inc. and The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA). (See the story on the poll on BBC News here)

The results are quite interesting and show very different attitudes and experiences in different countries. Especially interesting is that people in developed countries tend to be more negative than people in developing countries. Negative attitudes in developed countries tended to be related to the unequal distribution of the fruits of globalisation. However, in several developing countries there was a common belief that globalisation would bring about more equality in their countries.

I have been a proponent of the UN Millennium Declaration's (UNMD) aim of promoting globalisation as a positive force through inclusive dialogue on globalisation. These results make me wonder whether the UNMD and related dialogue on globalisation might be giving rise to false expectations. Not that I think there is anything wrong with this dialogue, rather that this dialogue is not reaching the economic heavyweights behind the spread of globalisation, i.e. primarily the corporate forces. The question then is, how do we take the dialogue to these parties that need to be involved? And I think that this is not just a question of how we reach their ears and get their input (because many of these parties are certainly involved in dialogue at some level), but more importantly, how do we ensure that the dialogue is centered around the values (for example...) that will make globalisation a positive force and that participants in the dialogue recognise these values?

The OLPC is child's play

The BBC News website has a great story about a child's first experience with the OLPC laptop.

Reminds me of my family's first home computer when I was at the tender age of 11-12. That was almost 30 years ago so obviously we weren't discovering the Internet, but I was very quick to pick up on programming with no instruction at all. Kids just figure these things out and often even things that no one had anticipated. Does this surprise anyone?

Internet Bill of Rights - it's still not making sense

At the Internet Governance Forum held Brazil, the issue of an "Internet Bill of Rights" has once again been brought up, as it was at last year's forum. I said then that I thought it was a waste of time and my view has not changed. It's a misinformed proposal based on a misconception of what the Internet is. Robin Gross of IPJustice, one of the primary initiators of the proposal, underlines this in a statement quoted on the BBC News web, where she claims that "rights issues on the net were 'transnational'."

Interesting... except that they are not transnational. At best, we could say that there is a net-layer that aspires to transcend nationality - but that is not the reality. Territoriality is very much alive and nations do impose their conceptions of "rights" within their domains. The issue of rights is therefore not an Internet issue, it is a general issue that should be, and is, addressed at a territorial level.

SimCity on the OLPC laptop

Update: I didn't dig deep enough to see what was really meant concerning constructionism and SimCity - see here - makes more sense now.

Game producer Electronic Arts has donated the original SimCity to the OLPC project (read more here). A GPL'ed open source version will soon be released under the name "Micropolis".

This is an interesting addition to the growing collection of OLPC software. I played SimCity way-back-when and enjoyed it immensely. It certainly has educational potential in areas such as civics and citizenship. However, I'm not quite sure that I agree with Slashdotter Zonk that it is "the epitome of constructionist educational games".

Papert's constructionism builds on Piaget, et al's constructivism. One of the key factors of constructivism is that knowledge is cumulative and adaptive in that it builds on previous experience and knowledge ("scaffolding"), and let's face it, a lot of the intended OLPC users will be children from poverty stricken areas and not the have-it-all-and-be-happy cities that SimCity promotes. While SimCity does make it possible to play the bad politician, as I recall this generally led to a chaotic unmaintainable city. In many parts of the world, this doesn't entirely jibe with the reality that people are faced with. Quite the contrary, poverty is quite carefully maintained through the wielding of political power. So, to provide a relevant context, will it be possible to carefully engineer and maintain poverty in the OLPC version of the game?

School laptops in Nigeria - Microsoft or Linux?

The Nigerian government has finalised a plan to make 17,000 Intel Classmate PCs available to school children. The project then took some strange twists and turns regarding the operating system for the laptops to run on. A strange series of events that illustrate the growing competition for control over computing platforms in developing countries.

Initially, the plan was that these laptops would run on Mandriva Linux, as announced by French Linux distributor Mandriva. Meanwhile, it seems that the Nigerian computer provider, Technology Support Center (TSC) (note the "Our values are openness..." under "Who we are" on TSC's webpage), decided that they would replace the Mandriva Linux system with Windows XP before distributing the laptops. Yet, they were still going to pay for the customised Mandriva distribution previously agreed to. Mandriva understandably complained and, finally, the government has stepped in and it appears that the initial plan, to have the laptops run on Mandriva Linux, will carry on, as reported in the ComputerworldUK article linked to at the beginning of this post.

Although I've not been able to find any explanation of what happened and why TSC was going to replace the operating system, it can't be ignored that Microsoft has been known to employ questionable tactics when faced with the possibility that competing operating systems may be widely deployed.

In the end, I think the Linux decision is a good one. Open source solutions give developing countries far more power to adapt technology to their own needs and contexts. What's more, the possibility to have an impact on the global ICT community is far greater with open solutions, which is something we all can benefit from.

ITU and Microsoft announce data visualisation project

At the recently concluded "Connect Africa" the ITU announced a partnership with Microsoft to produce ITU Global View, an online platform for tracking ICT development. It will be based on Microsoft's Virtual Earth and will allow for visual representation of data on ICT infrastructure and implementation. I'm sure this will be a very valuable tool for policy-makers, researchers and others. However, I'm somewhat disappointed that this will be built on a closed platform when perfectly viable open platforms, such as Google Earth, are available (for ex. see Gapminder recently acquired by Google).

The problem, as I see it, is that a closed platform will be controlled by, and fed by, institutions. Institutions necessarily generalise, simply because they cannot feasibly gather data that would be truly representative of all the imaginable levels of locality that are involved with their projects. Open platforms have shown that they are able to give individuals and communities a voice in a larger global community. We see this daily on blogs, wikis, social bookmarking sites and other open platforms. The sort of granularity that an open platform could provide would be far more interesting in a project like this.

For example, take a look at the Google Earth (American Cell Tower Density) visualisation posted here. That's some pretty interesting info. However, the visualisation is broken down into sectors. So, we don't know about cellular blind spots within those sectors, which might be very helpful. But, far more helpful and informative would be visual representations of the actual signal strength on a granular localised level. Then we might be able to look and say, "There are a lot of people in that spot right there that say they don't get a signal. Why not?"

But, even more importantly is that communities and individuals can develop their own data representations, telling the world what they want them to hear, rather than what one of many international institutions decide to collect data on.