Outrageous, if you ask me: CNN.com - Tolls could dot the Internet highway - Feb 27, 2006
I just discovered this. Lots of useful statistical info, all available at one place: NationMaster.com - Where Stats Come Alive!
These are the types of things I like. An "open source-like" book titled Wireless Networking in the Developing World. The book is authored by known and respected professionals. It is released under a ShareAlike Creative Commons license. The book is available for free electronically or a printed copy can be ordered. It is supported by the website, where the authors have set up a wiki for commenting on the book, making corrections, translating and providing concrete examples of projects. Impressive stuff. Check it out.
Sometimes I feel that I need to refocus and put the things I've posted about into context. This blog is supposed to be about leapfrogging, but it might not always be clear where I'm going with these ponderings of mine. So here's a brief opinion piece to tie some things together. The burning question of the day - given what I've posted here, what is my view of leapfrogging development?
For me, this boils down to at least two questions:
- What are the goals of leapfrogging development?
- What is the role of ICTs in leapfrogging development, given those goals?
My answer to the first question is that the goal of leapfrogging development is the expansion of the information society to be representative of the multitude of ways of knowing throughout the world. This is not a technological development and it is not something that concerns only those who find themselves on the wrong side of the "digital divide". To me, the notion of the information society is global, democratic and inclusive. Being a part of the information society is not only about having access to information, more important is being able to contribute to the information society. The focus for leapfrogging development is then on finding ways to increase the input of marginalised societies and cultures into the global information flow. As long as that input is missing, the information society is deficient. Hence, leapfrogging is intended to "fix" the information society by increasing the diversity of resources available.
The reason that ICTs are important for leapfrogging development has nothing to do with the technological sophisticiation expected of members of the information society. Rather, it just so happens that they are, at the moment, the best means we have for sharing information. If we were to discover tomorrow that we are all able to communicate globally through "extra-sensory perception", a lot of that technology would be immediately rendered obsolete. The technology is not the necessary part of the equation. The necessary part of the equation is being able to translate knowledge into information in a way that it becomes meaningful for others and to have the means for effectively using and communicating that information.
Leapfrogging is to me not a matter of one party helping another. It is a collaborative activity that is intended to benefit everyone involved. What leapfrogging can provide for developing countries is acknowledgement of the relative cultural knowledge base in a global society - empowerment in a world driven by knowledge and information. For developed countries, recognition that there is no supremacy in knowledge - knowledge, wherever it originates, constitutes a valuable contribution to be evaluated on a par with any other knowledge. You never know where the "next big thing" is going to come from. Now, how do we effectively use ICTs to promote and support the activities necessary to form an equitable information society? And, how will we know if it is being achieved?
This is certainly not all I have to say on the matter, but let it suffice for the time being. And now for a couple of relevant links:
India is such an excellent example of what I'm talking about - India Empowered to me is Knowledge taking roots in the village
I think Wikipedia can be leveraged as an important tool in leapfrogging development - Blogs and Wikis: Ushering in an Era of Change
It's funny how things happen to fall into your lap at just the right moment. Here I am pondering the nature of the information society, wondering what are the characteristics of an information society and when can we say that we have, or that someone has joined, an information society, when this story of internet use in China (more here, too) pops up. Basically, what happened is that a journalist in China, that does its best to control and filter Internet access, sent out a message about restrictions about to be imposed on a group of editors just prior to a meeting where these restrictions were to be announced. The message proliferated over the Internet so that, eventually, everyone knew what was about to happen before it was announced. The authorities ended up reversing their decision. The questions that arise in my mind are, can a country that tries to control access to the Internet be considered fully integrated with the information society (i.e. is the information society by necessity a democratic society)? And, can a domestic power ever fully control access to the Internet or are they just delaying the inevitable (i.e. integration into the democratic information society)?
I've been thinking some more about the "information society", something I've thought about in the past. I thank Ajit K. Pyati's paper for re-piquing my interest because I think this is an important issue, since it is something that we seem to be striving for. I decided to put down some of my thoughts. This can be taken as an argument for the need for something more than the "technological determinism" identified by Pyati in the WSIS documents referred to in his paper. Click below to read my thoughts...
The concept "information society" is a conceptual construct and I think it is reasonable to assume that one concept is meant to modify the other. But, I have never come across a clarification of which is meant to modify which. It would be useful to break the concept of "information society" down, but both "information" and "society" are difficult concepts that are understood in many ways. For my purposes, I'm going to rely on the following general definitions:
Information is derived from knowledge and experience and is communicable in a meaningful manner.
A society is a system bounded by beliefs, norms and rules in which individuals interact primarily with other individuals within the system.
Now, we deconstruct the construct:
On the one hand we could say that "information society" refers to a society which is characterised by information, and I think this is how it is usually understood. On the other hand, we might also think of it as referring to information that is somehow characterised by society or a specific society, since we usually refer to the information society, rather than an information society. Lastly, there is probably nothing wrong with thinking of the information society acting in both ways, i.e. societal information and informational society.
The first case is the more familiar and the easier to describe. It implies that there is a society, which is the primary focus of the concept, where information is the defining characteristic. I think this is what is described when, for example, "globalisation" is defined as relying on the rapid exchange of information throughout the world for business and knowledge development purposes. Through the exchange of information a global society is formed which requires certain technologies to facilitate this exchange. What bounds this society is beliefs about the technology and what can be done with it, and the necessary rules and norms to maintain order in such a system. It is a radically different kind of society than what we have been used to because interaction between individuals is not hindered by geographical distance. Therefore, the individuals that make up this society, also inhabit other societies which can be further separated, physically and culturally, than interacting societies have traditionally been.
In the second case, the focus is not on the society, but rather on information. What is significant here is that we refer to an "information society" rather than, for example, an "information network". The conceptual construct, in this sense, would seem to imply that information is characterised by either a specific society or society in general, i.e. there is something social about information. It's not difficult to think about information as being a product of a social context. If information is related to experiences and knowledge in a communicable form, it will reflect the values and norms of the society that produced it. (This is not as obvious as it may seem, but a more in depth discussion about this point is beyond the scope of what I'm trying to accomplish here, so I'll just refer to a past paper of mine that discusses this.) Hence, an "information society" can be taken to refer to information that is, or is able to be made to be, relevant for a certain social context. In this instance, the "information society". To be integrated into the "information society" then not only refers to the availability of the technology necessary to enter this society, but also, or alternatively, the ability to produce information that is relevant to that society.
As I suggested previously, we can either decide to accept one of these understandings of what the conceptual construct "information society" refers to, or we can say that it refers to both. I think that "information society" is most commonly understood in the first way that I've described. But can we understand "information society" in the second way without accepting the first? This is an important question because it addresses the assumption that availability of the technology is enough for integration in the "information society". I would answer the question, yes, but with the caveat that this would not be very meaningful if integration in the first sense is not foreseeable. The practices associated with the production of information in the second understanding of the concept can be promoted without the technical framework required for the first. Therefore, the "information society" should be understood in both ways, but it should be kept in mind that they can be separated and that full integration in the "information society" requires that the conditions suggested by both understandings be met.
(Feb 13, 2006 - fixed the link to Pyati's paper. Feb 19, 2006 - fixed a typo.)
I recently came across a paper written by Ajit K. Pyati titled "WSIS: Whose vision of an information society?". It's not exactly brand spanking new, from the May 2005 edition of First Monday. I was intrigued because several years ago (late 90's), I went looking for a suitable definition of "information society" for a paper I was working on, only to find nothing whatsoever! Ever since, I'll do a quick Google check once in a while, just to see if anything meaningful has cropped up, and at long last, my question was answered. It's a good paper and the author raises several important issues. I hope this signals a much needed debate on the nature of the oft referred to "information society" and what it means for development and education in general. Click on to read my brief critique.
-----------------------------
This is a brief critique of Ajit K. Pyati's paper "WSIS: Whose vision of an information society?", published in First Monday, Volume 10, number 5 (May 2005). In the paper, Pyati is primarily concerned with the World Summit on the Information Society's (WSIS) theoretical framework for its conceptualization of an "information society". The conclusions are based on a content analysis of the WSIS Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action that came out of the first phase of the WSIS in 2003. Pyati concludes that the WSIS's definition of an "information society" is utopian and technologically deterministic. Given that there is no clear consensus on what an information society is, Pyati feels that this definition ignores the complexities of the issues that inclusion in an information society are meant to address.
Pyati does a good job of describing different theoretical frameworks that relate to the notion of an information society. The theoretical frameworks are divided into two categories based on what Pyati refers to as the continuity/discontinuity argument. This distinction is used to describe the relationship between the information society and preceeding societal forms. The discontinuity camp, which includes postmodernism and Castell's informational mode of development, argues that the information society is a fundamentally new societal form. The continuity camp, which includes neo-Marxism and reflexive modernization, argues that the information society is a continuation of relations established in preceeding societal forms. Despite a clear and articulate description of these two categories, Pyati does not position technological determinism, which the rest of the paper focusses on almost exclusively, within this dichotomy. It can also be assumed that the theoretical frameworks mentioned all have their own distinct notions of what a "society" is and how it functions, which Pyati does not discuss, nor does he seem to pick up on the significance of how society is defined in the context of an "information society". Hence, it is questionable whether Pyati achieves one of his stated goals, to describe how the WSIS's conceptualization of the "information society" fits into these theoretical frameworks, because technological determinism is never related to the continuity/discontinuity dichotomy, nor is technological determinism described in terms of social organization that could be related to any of the theoretical frameworks mentioned.
Pyati raises some very good points regarding the WSIS's vagueness about how integration in an information society will be achieved and especially, how success will be measured. Specifically, the relationship between the "information society" and the "knowledge society" is a confusing one. These terms are often used interchangeably and if we are to envision some sort of transition between the two as a goal of development efforts, the distinction needs to be made clear. Pyati also brings up the matter of "levels" of development and questions whether there is an implied goal that ICTs are a tool for bringing developing countries up to a standard defined by developed countries. Is this maybe what is meant by an information vs. knowledge society? Are developed countries already forming knowledge societies and promoting lesser standards for developing countries?
Pyati criticizes the lack of "requirements for the quality of content, the nature of the technologies, or the potential use values" of ICTs. He also questions the use of the term "digital opportunity", which he feels is ill defined and comes across as a cliché. I have no problem with the term "digital opportunity", and in fact, find it quite suitable in this context. It emphasizes the fact that ICTs are enablers and not an end in themselves. Perhaps content and values should be defined more precisely than is done in the documents being analyzed, but here, it may be appropriate to state the outcomes in vague terminology in order to allow for greater flexibility in the creation of ICT applications that takes into consideration the contexts for which they are intended. If we consider the vague terminology in this light, Pyati's conclusions regarding technological determinism may be somewhat unwarranted. He may be confusing goals left open-ended for the sake of propriety with unfounded assumptions about the power of technology to bring about change.
Pyati states that the WSIS's framing of the "information society" gives the false impression that "ICTs, if only implemented properly, will transform the world and bring peace and prosperity." I don't know about "peace and prosperity", but it is clear from experience in developed and developing countries that ICTs do have the potential to have a very dramatic transformative effect. But, the key here is in the words "implemented properly". We cannot make assumptions about how best to implement ICTs in developing countries based on the experiences of others. These matters must be informed by the local contexts for which they are intended. Hence, documents such as those being analyzed, that are meant to pertain to a wide audience cannot be overly prescriptive. Pyati makes this point himself, when he states that "an international summit like WSIS is not intended to have built–in implementation mechanisms." Pyati seems to have some difficulties resolving these conflicting notions of what we should expect from international summits such as the WSIS.
Finally, Pyati questions "what authority the UN and 'world community' have in declaring that we all are living in and want to further build an 'Information Society'." Whether or not we are already in an information society, it is clear that the rapid exchange of information in today's globalized society has an impact on everyone's daily life. I think it borders on the absurd to assume that an information society is not already being built and that it is everyone's concern. The question is not if we want it or not, or if it's happening or not, the relevant question is, what are we going to do about it?
I haven't had time to read through the entire report, but I agree with the basic conclusions as stated in the intro. For now I'm just going to post this link. I may comment more later.
Note on the sudden flurry of activity: I'm cleaning up on my desktop and finding a few things that I should've posted a long time age. So, there'll be a few entries today, and probably over the next couple of days.
One of the many informative documents I've been reading that the WSIS has been producing recently is Core ICT Indicators, produced by the UN's Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development. It's an interesting document for its lofty ambitions, but something of a let-down for its predictability. One of the stated objectives, in addition to developing effective ICT indicators for developing countries, is "to develop a global database on information society indicators." (p. 3). This is the interesting part, i.e. not just indicators on ICT, but on ICT and the information society. But, as is usually the case, it doesn't say what the "information society" is. Perhaps as a consequence of the ill defined scope, the proposed indicators fail to identify societal factors, in terms of an "information society" or the immediate society. There have been, and are, several more ongoing projects to develop ICT indicators that are subject to the same criticism.
ICT indicators need to consider more than access to ICTs. What people are doing with ICTs is much more interesting and relevant. The most important factor related to the Internet that almost all indicators ignore - is content being produced? If so, how, by whom, and for who? The number of computers, Internet connections, and number of web servers in a region don't tell us that.
A Pew/Internet study from last November shows that this sort of data is at least not beyond reach.
Anita Givens, senior director for instructional materials and educational technology at the Texas Education Agency, is quoted in an article on CNN as saying, "... what is the educational value of accessing a lot of information?" and "Having a lot of information at your fingertips is like going to the library and not reading anything." Givens is primarily referring to the need to promote critical information evaluation skills, which is of course important in our information age (I want schools to teach formal logic before they start on algebra!!!). But let's remember, the Internet is not a library. It is home to a constantly expanding and changing interactive community of users and creators of information. Access to information is one aspect, critical evaluation is another, but the people that gain the most are those who are providing the information. As Heidegger said, "In all teaching the teacher learns the most."