For the past year, I've been researching the integration of technology in education, and most recently the use of cell phones, as I mentioned in a recent post. What I have seen is that the use of communication technology in education is more driven by reactionary responses to technology than proactive. There are a number of things that contribute to this tendency; gaps in teacher training, parents' assumptions about education and technology, students' assumptions about education and technology (yes, students themselves are often just as skeptical about technology in education as the adults around them), and unclear or misinformed policies. What we end up with are educational systems where the use of technology is always at least one step behind what's happening outside of the system. My question is, can we formulate policies that accommodate rapid responses to technological changes?
A very good example of technological skepticism in education is the cell phone. Cell phone ownership and cell phone use has spread all over the world at a phenomenal rate. According to a BECTA report from last year, cell phone ownership among 12 year olds in the UK is almost universal and there is little reason to think that other developed countries are any different. One would think that this would be an exciting opportunity for learning, which is essentially a communicative activity. But, no, instead they are most often treated with suspicion and skepticism, labeled distracting, and very often banned. Yet, for students these devices have become one of their primary means of exchange and transfer of knowledge and opinions. The educational system, however, seems determined to encourage the belief that these exchanges using accessible technology are inherently inferior to the exchanges that go on within the classroom, and students seem very prepared to accept these beliefs.
An anomaly in all this is that many in development circles have been quick to point out that cell phones may be the transformative technology that will bring education to parts of the world where opportunities for learning have been few. Why this difference in attitudes toward cell phones in developing countries? The only response to that question that I can think of is that it takes a dire situation for cell phones to be seriously considered as a learning technology.
The few and limited experiments that have been carried out using cell phones in education show that educational systems have already missed out on an exciting opportunity and will have a lot of catching up to do. While they are catching up, technology will continue to develop and they will likely fall behind in regards to those as well.
One way that educational policy can perhaps address this issue is by formulating clearer policies regarding the relationship between formal, non-formal and informal learning. Many policies already do address these different arenas of learning, but the do so in a manner that keeps each seperate, i.e. there's one policy for formal learning, one for non-formal, etc. What is needed is a more holistic view of learning that incorporates all of these learning arenas into one systemic vision of learning that views the classroom as an open conduite for the flow of information and knowledge from a range of sources. Perhaps the reason that cell phones have received more attention in the context of developing countries is that in many regions traditional classrooms haven't existed and education is more closely integrated within the community as a whole (I really don't know - this is pure conjecture). Whether or not this is the case, it might suggest that a more open approach to educational institutions could be helpful.
At this point, it's probably best I stop with the guesswork and refer back to a previous post on "Opening Up Education".
Opening Up Education: The Collective Advancement of Education through Open Technology, Open Content, and Open Knowledge is a timely and relevant collection of articles about the need to, and ways to, integrate formal and informal learning. The book has been released on the web, in its entirety, under a Creative Commons license. Although the book focuses on "openness" in a general sense, there is a strong emphasis on the impact and role of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in facilitating the open environments and processes that affect today's learners.
Given the emphasis on the impact of ICTs on learning and education, some may question the relevance of this book for educators in parts of the world where access to ICTs is limited, if it exists at all. In fact, I think it may be even more relevant for educators in those parts of the world because the authors approach education from a very non-traditional point of view. We have learned that development of education is most successful when it conforms to the needs and expectations of those whom it is meant to serve. The approaches covered in this book do just that by looking at the ways that learners learn in their daily lives and what formal educational institutions can do to support those activities.
In his foreword titled "Creating a Culture of Learning", John Seely Brown covers a wide range of topics, as do the articles included in the book. His case for open approaches to education hinges on what is to be expected given the book's title, free-flowing information, learners' engagement in communities of practice and the socially constructed nature of knowledge. He also highlights some interesting novel issues that should be of concern to the modern educator. One is the concept of "immersion":
"Immersion comes from being surrounded by others talking and interacting with us and is furthered [sic] facilitated by our deep desire to interact, be understood and express our needs."(pg. xiii)
As we see more and more deeply engaging activities supported by ICTs, such as role-playing games, this is a very interesting and relevant point.
Another interesting, and somewhat provocative, point that Seely Brown makes is that, "... no one pedagogical or technical approach is the answer to ensuring that students are engaged and prepared." (pg. xiv). The alternative is then a shift of focus to the ways that individuals learn in various informal and formal settings, or what is referred to in a broad sense as "learningscapes".
I don't know why Seely Brown chooses to use the term "learningscapes" (and elsewhere "learning landscape"). I don't think this term captures the emphasis on processes which, nonetheless, I think is his main point. His concept of "learning ecologies" would have made much more sense here.
Lastly, Seely Brown tells a very thought provoking story of his exchanges with an associate provost of the University of Michigan. He suggested that, despite offical enrollment of approx. 40,000 students, UM teaches approx. 250,000 students each year because of students' involvement in widespread social networks.
I think the Finnish systemic approach to education is illustrative of at least some of what the authors of the articles in this book are talking about. See for example:
Interesting video about how ICT is integrated in the Finnish classroom
Robert B. Kozma's very informative paper on ICT & education in Finland, Singapore and Egypt (note how Singapore is following Finland's lead)
Salon (via Boing Boing) had an article about Richard Heeks' interesting economic and developmental analysis of so-called "gold farming", titled "Current Analysis and Future Research Agenda on "Gold Farming": Real-World Production in Developing Countries for the Virtual Economies of Online Games". Gold farming is the fairly common (albeit unethical and in some circumstances even illegal) practice of playing online video games for the sole purposes of collecting in-play money and valuables to sell for real-world money. Heeks claims that this has become a very lucrative activity for developing countries especially with several players involved, including individuals all over the world (often sending remittances to developing countries) and even enterprises whose primary business is gold farming.
Heeks sees this as an important issue for many fields including economics and the ICT4D (ICT for development) field. Heeks claims:
"Gold farming presents two things [for ICT4D]. First, a current model for earning money via an Internet-connected PC. Second, an example of a possible future model in which Internet-connected workers in developing countries produce a wide range of virtual goods and services. For both these reasons, the ICT4D field should be taking a keen interest in gold farming."
I certainly agree with Heeks that this is something that the ICT4D field should be aware of, but I do not see this as being something that the ICT4D field should be especially occupied with. First of all, as far as I can tell, gold farming is merely about making money and has little, if anything, to do with the types of impact the ICT4D agenda hopes to achieve in terms of the advancement of the knowledge economy, education and encouraging equal access to, and distribution of, the fruits of globalization. Tying up scarce computers in schools and telecenters in developing countries with dubious activities in online virtual worlds is something I hope that few would condone, no matter what the fiscal returns might be. Heeks does address some negative sides of this development, ex. when he compares it to the exploitation of Chinese immigrant workers in the US in the 19th century (hence the "quaint" title given to some Chinese gold farmers, "playbourers").
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 Barrett's first recommendation is "Train teachers to integrate technology into the classroom". This is pretty obvious, but he goes on to repeat the Intel mantra, "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 coming from Barrett the UN GAID chairman or Barrett the Intel chairman. However, there is an abundance of research that gives ample 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." 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, there may be quite a wait for the telecommunications market to get around to delivering on the "free market" promise.
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?
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?
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.
I recently conducted a very simple experiment. It is by no means a model of academic rigor, but interesting nonetheless. I conducted a search on Google Scholar of "Millennium Development Goals" for a few specific years. The results hint at a growing tendency to overemphasize specific goals.
First I searched for "Millennium Development Goals" in 2003. The results show a slight emphasis on poverty reduction and capacity building. However, overall a number of themes are evident, including health, education, gender equality in addition to discourse on the MDGs in general.
Next I searched for "Millennium Development Goals" in 2007. This time the results were very biased toward health related issues. In fact, of the first 40 hits, only about 4-5 concern non-health related issues.
As I've mentioned, this can hardly be considered a scientific experiment, but the results do raise questions about the attention given to the different MDGs. It is especially interesting to compare these results with recent reporting on MDG progress. In the UN's 2007 Millennium Development Goals Report, many of the positive examples of the impact of the MDGs would fall under the poverty reduction, education and gender equality goals, while most of the current "key challenges" would fall under the health related goals. However, the report does acknowledge that while progress has been made in poverty reduction, education and gender equality, it has been spotty, at best. So, I wonder whether the form of reporting on the MDGs may have the inadvertent effect of prematurely diverting attention from some issues leaving them unresolved in the most problematic areas. I might even suggest that the tendency to focus on progress concerning specific goals, rather than adopting a more holistic view of the MDGs, exacerbates the problem. But, I would only seriously do that if this was a rigorous scientific experiment. But, still there's that nagging feeling...
As distribution of the OLPC project's XO laptop nears, has the shift of attention from the educational aspects of the project to the technical aspects injured the project?
When Negroponte and the MIT Media Lab started talking about their plans for a "$100 laptop" they never ceased to remind everyone that this was first and foremost an educational project and not a technology project. The project was well grounded in Seymour Papert's "constructionist" theory of learning, an expansion on constructivist theories' notion of "learning as creating meaning" to emphasise the conscious activity of creating, i.e. "constructing" as opposed to "having been constructed". However, the primary target audience for this revolutionary educational project, children in developing and under-developed countries, presented the project members with considerable technological hurdles, ex. how to overcome limited access to electricity and the Internet, how to ensure that the computers can endure harsh environmental conditions, etc. Although it was clear that, if successful, the project would deliver many technological innovations, the claim was that the primary focus was always on the educational aspects of the project.
Critics quickly came crawling out of the woodwork. Many criticized what they felt would be a waste of development funds that would be better used to provide the poor with food, water, medicine, etc. As the project moved forward, we finally started getting glimpses of what the computer would look like, and even got hints of how it would actually work. That's when the criticisms started to get confused. Many criticized the "non-standard" interface (and here) and the decision to use a Linux-based system, presumably based on the assumption that anything that isn't Windows (or at least Windows-like) isn't preparing users for a realistic future. Some even attacked the computer itself, claiming that it was too "cute", too "gadget-like". Even some big-wigs, like Bill Gates and Intel's Craig Barrett (who, by the way, heads the UN's Global Alliance for ICT and Development (GAID)) were delivering low blows, claiming that the $100 laptop would never amount to much more than a toy, all the while scrambling to introduce their own products to compete with the OLPC project (Barrett and Negroponte seem to have made up since).
Somewhere along the way, I think the critics managed to put OLPC on the defensive and directed attention away from the initial educational goals to technical and other aspects of the project. Negroponte lost his cool - lashed out at Intel for competing with his non-profit, started making unfounded claims. He played right into the hands of the critics and the critics seized the opportunity.
Although the OLPC project continues to receive considerable attention, very little is said about the initial educational goals of the project (ex. this BBC piece). Almost everything is about the technology, which, while certainly noteworthy, is really more a means to an end than a goal in itself. There is little if any mention about the nifty "activities" (why should a "desktop" metaphor make sense?) and software being developed.
I think that the real value of the OLPC project is in the educational goals of the project and the foundation that they are built on. These certainly are not above criticism (Robert Kozma has done a good job of shaking things up), but they are what will make or break the project in the end. With delivery of the machines apparently right around the corner, the OLPC project should put more resources into these educational aspects. In fact, they should never have stopped doing so. Kozma's criticisms of the theoretical assumptions of the OLPC crew are perfectly valid. The OLPC project could have spent a lot of valuable time testing and refining these theoretical aspects.
Several weeks ago I had planned to post about a two year old interview that I came across with Kenyan economist James Shikwati that apeared in Der Spiegel. I don't remember how I came across that interview, but apparently others did as well because this circulated around a few blogs around the same time that I first saw it. The significance of the interview is that here is a noted expert in economics, from an African country, asking developed countries to stop sending "aid" to the continent. Now, this issue has come up again after the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference that was recently held in Tanzania. There, this issue was again brought up, this time by Ugandan journalist, Andrew Mwenda. According to reports that I have read, celebrity do-gooder Bono jumped up to defend "aid" and "debt relief", mentioning relief following the Irish potato famine and the Marshall Plan as two successful examples of such interventions. These are not only poor examples of what was being talked about, but Bono's mention of them also illustrates the superficial knowledge on which some celebrity do-gooders seem to base their well-meaning intentions.
Before I get into debunking Bono, I want to just mention what I had intended to post in response to the Shikwati interview in Der Spiegel. The problem with Shikwati's criticism (and Mwenda's) concerns the definition of "aid". They both obviously refer to as "aid" direct and indirect financial contributions to developing countries' governments. However, I prefer a broader definition that also covers foreign investment, collaborative initiatives (e.g. in education, research, etc.), and so forth. The reason for this is that the narrow definition makes it possible to categorize activities in developing countries as not being development oriented if they do not involve direct financial contributions, thereby allowing active parties to justify measures that may be not in accordance with ethical concerns and values that are more commonly related to delivery of development assistance. For example, an Icelandic power company, ReykjavÃk Energy (RE), has just launched a project in Djibouti with the goal of eventually establishing geothermal power plants in the region (in Icelandic). When asked whether this was a "development project", Þorleifur Finnsson, director of foreign projects and innovation, responded that it was not, rather that it is a commercial venture (Intel has made similar statements regarding their "Classmate PC", but I can't find a link). If successful, the project will provide cheap and reliable energy to a large region in a severely under-developed region. Obviously, this will have a significant impact on development in the region. So, how is this not a "development project"? And, what does Þorleifur mean by claiming that this is not a "development project"? Does this mean that RE is free to profit from the venture and export those profits out of the region? I really don't know, but would like to.
Back to Bono's statements at the TED conference in Africa (which, following from the preceding paragraph, I would suggest is a meaningful and potentially effective contribution to development in the region - the conference that is):
Now, I know that Bono is Irish and I am not, but to suggest that relief after the Irish famine was entirely, or in large part, due to financial contributions to the Irish is very simplistic. Financial contributions were only one of a wide range of measures that were implemented in Ireland after the famine, and not necessarily the most important. Some of the significant measures included, better transportation systems to deliver food to the hardest hit areas, numerous legislative changes to reduce tariffs and trade barriers, legislative changes that made it possible for Irish farmers to diversify their crops, increased jobs, etc. The common denominator in all of these actions - the Irish had more opportunities to help themselves.
To liken the Marshall Plan to the types of financial contributions that Shikwati and Mwenda criticize borders on the absurd. I suspect that Bono knows very little, if anything, about the Marshall Plan. The differences are numerous. Some obvious ones:
There is an overwhelming amount of literature on both the Irish famine and the Marshall Plan. What I've posted here is from memory and therefore I haven't put in any citations. Considering the scholarly attention that both of these have received, finding literature is very easy and ignorance therefore inexcusable.
Nevertheless, Bono and others have done a lot to raise awareness of development issues and to open the dialogue to the general public. But, these are complex issues and it is doubtful that there are any simple solutions. That is a message that celebrities, with the influence that they can have, should be delivering.
I have a lot of stuff on this blog on my analysis of the Millennium Development Goals, the United Nations Millennium Declaration and ICTs for development, but I never got around to posting anything about the research that came from it. Time to rectify the situation.
This post is about a document analysis of an ICT4D program that focuses on what Atkinson and Coffey (1997) have referred to as a "document reality", i.e. how an organization, institution or other entity presents itself through the documents it produces. My results surprised me somewhat because they reveal what I feel may result in many missed opportunities for the ICT4D community.
------------------------
I chose an ICT4D program that is fairly well known and well established and set out to determine how its documentation reflects the role of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and especially how it refers to the MDGs to promote consistency and coherence among a diverse range of activities. I based my assumptions about the MDGs on my previous analysis that can be read here, here, here and here. Basically, this is that, in terms of organizational policy, the MDGs should be viewed holistically based on globalization, the knowledge-based economy and learning as core processes, with poverty reduction as a core issue and goal, to maximize potential cross-cutting benefits of ICTs. For example, let's say that we have an initiative that focuses on a specific health issue. ICTs may have a specific role to play in the initiative, but because ICTs are not context specific (they're just very flexible communication technologies that can be used in any number of ways) it's important that an initiative try to relate specific goals to broader issues to emphasize the flexibility of ICTs. So, let's say our initiative concerns the development of a database on HIV related information. It should be made clear that the experience and knowledge gained from this specific HIV related project may, and probably will, yield useful experience and knowledge that can be applied to other initiatives - ex. expanding the database to include information on other health issues or linking it to information on health services, etc. Then, future projects can also make use of the results of our HIV related initiatives because that element of expansion was built into the project in the first place.
When I started collecting my data I got a bit apprehensive and quickly started to think that this wasn't going to be a very useful project. I had collected data and had a quick look through it and saw that it wasn't really organized the way that I had hoped or expected. But, I was persistent and dove into my data, coding and recoding and reading until I practically knew it all backwards and forwards. Soon, I started to see a pattern and the pattern that was coming to light was rather surprising.
What I saw was that this program, though they referred to the MDGs routinely, didn't seem to have really thought the MDGs through and the way they were presented in the documentary evidence was very inconsistent across the themes. Nevertheless, in their work program, they claimed to be committed to the MDGs and that they specifically seek to promote coherence across their three main themes. So, they want to make educational projects relevant to entrepeneurship projects and vice versa. One would think that, since the MDGs address these issues within a single framework, they would be an ideal framework for promoting coherence within a program that is so deeply committed to them. The reality was that the MDGs were routinely mentioned in documentation on educational projects, but only referring specifically to MDGs 2, universal primary education, and 3, gender equality in primary and secondary education. The MDGs were not mentioned at all in the small selection of documentary evidence related to other themes.
So I thought, I'll give them some flexibility and look for other indicators related to the MDGs, ex. globalization, knowledge-based economy, etc. As with the MDGs, these things popped up every now and then but not in a consistent manner. Certainly not consistent enough to reveal any clear cross-cutting benefits.
I started getting apprehensive again and thought, so what? Why does this matter? They still have an integrated program with themes that can benefit from each other. Isn't the coherence and complimentarity just built into the program as a whole then? That's when I got to the analysis of the output of some of the projects. Most revealing was a project that aims to collect comparative data on educational ICT projects in various countries. I had already analyzed the requests for proposals related to the project and noted the lack of, or limited, mention of the MDGs and relation to the core processes of globalization and the knowledge-based economy. What was so revealing about these documents was that the authors of the reports clearly wanted to relate their initiatives to the MDGs, globalization and the knowledge-based economy but the project gave them limited opportunity to do so. Therefore, these elements were sort of squeezed into the reports in several awkward ways and places that made them virtually inaccessible for any comparative analysis. Furthermore, if anyone wanted to use these reports to relate educational initiatives to other themes, ex. entrepeneurship and innovation, they would have to navigate through each and every different structure and expression of these cross-cutting elements.
So, what does this tell us? First and foremost, that the document reality that an organization or program constructs is relevant to the outcomes of its projects. The social reality within the organization may be very different than the document reality. In this case, the program studied does not have an exceptionally large staff and they must talk to each other at least every now and then - passing information along on what is going on within their own thematic areas. But, the social reality is not what most outsiders, which would usually include prospective project promoters, have immediate access to. For most of them, it is the document reality that defines the program and constitutes the structure that they will function in as recipients of grants.
For the ICT4D community, as with the bulk of the international development community, the MDGs frame and orient the current development agenda. It is important that these communities have a deep understanding of the MDGs and how they relate to development policy to be able to effectively contribute to the attainment of those goals. In the policy context it is not enough to refer to specific goals that can be related to narrowly defined themes. This goes against what the MDGs are intended to achieve, i.e. complimentarity and coherence of a diverse range of approaches. It is enough to point out the organization of the MDGs to make this clear. They are organized in a hierarchy in terms of their relevance as indicators related to other targets. The first target is poverty reduction because that is the primary goal of the development community. The subsequent targets, although no less important, are all intended to help achieve that first target, each in their own way. This is not to say that ICTs are least relevant since they fall under the last target. It merely means that in terms of measurable progress, they are in and of themselves the most intangible. This is why target 18 is so vague - it needs to have room to be applied to a wide range of issues, some of which may not yet have been identified.
We might ask, is it perhaps overly presumptious to think of the MDGs as a policy instrument at all? I mean, aren't they just a set of indicators to measure development progress? Indeed, the MDGs do not constitute a policy because they do not attempt to say anything about how the goals are to be achieved, only what measures are considered to be evidence of progress. However, the fact that they emerge from and continue to contribute to broad discourse about development should compell us to relate policy to them in the context of current discourse. But, to do so, we have to view them holistically to be able to relate them to processes that can inform policy in such a way that it aims to address the entire hierarchy of targets. A policy may focus on health related issues, but if it does not attempt to also address educational, environmental and other health related issues in its general framework, its contribution to the overall goal of poverty reduction is undermined. The same goes for the ICT4D agenda. If ICT4D initiatives do not clearly promote bridging between goals, their contribution will be questionable. Current discourse on development and ICTs makes it quite clear that the bridging capacity of ICTs and the context in which poverty is measured are related to globalization and the knowledge-based economy (with an emphasis on learning and innovation). ICTs are the drivers of globalization and the essential tools of the knowledge-based economy. Therefore, the MDGs can be regarded as a policy instrument, but, to be effective as such within the ICT4D community, they need to be holistically related to globalization and the knowledge-based economy, rather than merely to narrowly defined specific development goals.
The BBC news website has a collection of brief reports about ways that ICT use is being spread and used in poverty stricken areas in South Africa. Everything from mesh networking with tin cans to free open source software.
While you're on BBC's site you may want to check out Bill Thompson's recent article about computer use in exams (or lack thereof). I couldn't agree with him more.
I had an interesting phone call this evening. It was from someone in the US who was preparing a piece for a morning radio show on the impact of Skype in China and was interested in the "leapfrogging" aspect. As I'm sure will always be the case, one comes up with the best responses after the actual interview. That, and I was thawing some chicken at the time and thinking about what I was going to do with it for dinner. Things like that can be a little distracting.
My response was along the lines that I don't see Skype as such being a major leapfrogging development for a few reasons. Firstly, the old criticism against the technocentric view of leapfrogging applies. Adopting Skype, or any other such ICT for that matter, doesn't really constitute leapfrogging in and of itself because it merely entails adopting current technology. That isn't a step beyond anything, as the leapfrogging concept suggests. Secondly, to function acceptably, Skype requires a fairly stable and up-to-date ICT infrastructure. So, Skype functionality is more a result of ICT adoption rather than a major step forward.
The big question then is how would Skype be used once it achieves widespread adoption in China? This is a question that I cannot answer and I would be surprised if anyone could at this point. But, judging from the way it's been used in places where there already is widespread adoption, I wouldn't expect anything too remarkable. As far as I'm concerned, Skype just makes it cheaper and easier to do things that we already do, i.e. communicate. Obviously that does impact the potential level of integration between regions with all the benefits that may have, but so do a lot of other things and any assumption in this regard would be highly speculative.
On top of this is the issue of Internet censorship in China. I don't know how things stand today but I do know that Skype was initially blocked in China. Given Chinese authorities' track record in these matters I would be quite surprised to learn that Skype can currently be freely used in China to facilitate communications with other Skype users or traditional telephones outside of China. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The thing that came to me after the interview, that I should have said about leapfrogging (although I got the impression that the focus was more on China) actually regards Skype itself. Skype has had a significant impact on Estonia, where the program was initially developed although the idea was brought over by a Swede and a Dane, and this may be regarded as far more illustrative of the leapfrogging concept than the diffusion of the application. Skype (and Kazaa which came from the same place) have given Estonia a lot of credibility in a new IT sector that is exceptionally innovative. This example underlines the fact that leapfrogging doesn't necessarily entail a move forward ("leapfrogging" might be a bit of a misnomer). In fact, it's far more effective when it moves to the side, so to speak. Estonia is creating a market that is unique and where it is an undisputed leader. This has contributed considerably to Estonia's being the dynamic EU hotspot that it is at the moment. That's leapfrogging!
Another draft related to my thesis. This one follows the previously posted drafts and discusses the theoretical foundations of the concepts of "knowledge" and "learning" in a globalized knowledge-based economy with special emphasis on ICTs. Links to the previous chapters are at the top of the left navigation column on the front page of the blog under the heading "The Millennium Declaration analysis series: drafts & excerpts from my thesis."
-----------------------------------
Knowledge and learning
The preceeding analysis clearly suggests that what is referred to by “knowledge� in the context of the KBE is not an objective entity that can exist separated from an individual. Knowledge is not a book or even a statement delivered by one individual to another. Perhaps it is best to consider knowledge as a property of individuals and as such something that can not quite be seperated from them because once separated it loses its context and relevance. Furthermore, knowledge can not be allowed to stagnate. An individual’s knowledge is constantly challenged by new experiences, reflection and reevaluation and is therefore always changing. Even the act of articulating knowledge is in itself a reflection and likely to have an impact on an individual’s knowledge. So, it is more appropriate to consider books and other products of a knowing individual as snapshots of the individual’s knowledge in a given space, time and context. Knowledge itself is inseparable from the processes that feed it, i.e. learning, and the individual that holds it. That being said, knowledge and learning are quite distinct. We use knowledge to produce things and to make judgments, whereas we use learning to develop our knowledge.
Knowledge
The notion of the KBE as a learning economy reflects several assumption about the nature of knowledge. Value is placed on the capacity and willingness to learn instead of the ability to articulate established “facts�. This line of thinking may be associated with several epistemological theories, but it is best expressed by advocates of “naturalized epistemology�.
Naturalized epistemology rejects traditional epistemological concerns about truth and knowledge for a more scientific approach to epistemological questions relying heavily on the cognitive sciences (Kim, 1988 - Kim, Jaegwon (1988) "What is Naturalized Epistemology?" Philosophical Perspectives 2 edited by James E. Tomberlin, Asascadero, CA: Ridgeview Publishing Co: 381-406). The resulting epistemological theories focus on the way individuals actually think, learn and share ideas.
While the traditional view of knowledge sees knowledge as consisting of many seperable components, i.e. “facts�, naturalized epistemology takes a more holistic view. An individual’s body of knowledge is considered to consist of a logically connected “web of beliefs� (Quine 1969). Some beliefs are more fundamental than others, reinforced either by fundamental assumptions, ex. religious beliefs, or by repeated empirical reinforcement. Despite the different nature and source of these beliefs, the entire body of beliefs acts as a whole, constantly being reevaluated in reaction to new experiences and information. There is therefore an emphasis on senses and individual experiences, (as sources of beliefs), the links between beliefs, and the language used to express beliefs and relay them to others.
Because knowledge in the naturalistic view is very individualized, in a societal context it is then best understood as an expression of the relationship between one’s beliefs (theory), what one actually experiences (observations) and how things are experienced. Therefore, knowledge is not simply beliefs about the world around us, it is an expression of how we sense the world around us in a particular context. For example, it has been claimed that the Piraha, a very small Amazonian tribe, have a very limited counting vocabulary (The Piraha challenge: an Amazonian tribe takes grammar to a strange place Science News, December 10, 2005). The Piraha are said to have words for one, two and many, with the word one often referring to “small�. One might assume that 4 simply does not exist to them. But, it would be absurd to assume that a Piraha, when presented with 4 occurences of an object, does not perceive 4 of objects. But, the Piraha appears to lack the means to express that in a manner that would distinguish it from, say, 5 occurences. An individual from a different societal context may refer to a an object in a very different way than I but both are referring to the same object. So we might say that knowledge is clearly defined and confined by individual experiences and the experiences of those in an individuals immediate environment.
Given this view of knowledge what is significant about the global KBE is that the “immediate environment�, i.e. knowledge cultures that an individual potentially experiences is greatly expanded. The global KBE therefore exposes assumptions that may be deeply rooted in societal contexts. On the one hand this may cause considerable friction between cultures that have previously had limited exposure to each other. On the other hand this may also provide an ideal opportunity for individuals and cultures to expand their knowledgebase by learning from these individuals and cultures that they have gained access to. This is the essence of knowledge in the context of the global KBE - The blurring of cultural (and knowledge) borders reveals deeply embedded assumptions to reveal inequalities in our conceptualization of concepts such as “globalization� thereby providing us the opportunity to reevaluate them given a broader understanding of the impact it has on others. It is this, at least in the context of globalization, that is the learning element in the global KBE as a learning economy.
Learning
Advocates of naturalized epistemology are primarily concerned with the nature of knowledge and epistemological questions concerning truth and validity. They lay little emphasis on learning except as it pertains to these questions. Obviously, since there is an emphasis on cognitive processes, learning does enter into the dialogue but it is not a specific focus in and of itself. The naturalistic notion of knowledge and the processes associated with knowledge development are More focused on learning and quite consistent with naturalized epistemology are constructivist theories of learning.
Much like naturalized epistemology, constructivism rejects objectivist notions that knowledge aims to accurately reflect an objective reality outside of the knower, the validity of which is empirically verifiable. The primary claim of constructivism is that the process of learning aims to develop knowledge that is constructed by individuals for the purpose of organizing that individual’s experiences (Glasersfeld, 1996). So where constructivism departs from traditional conceptions of knowledge is in the claim that our knowledge is not dictated by an ontological reality, rather how we relate to the objects we experience. Constructivism does not reject an ontological reality, it merely asserts that while the objects of our knowledge may be the same, the way we relate to them is different. This is important to note because if we reject an ontological reality, we reject the possibility of different ways of knowing having any impact on each other. One way of knowing will simply have no meaning to anyone but that knower, or those knowers, i.e. we are stuck in the throes of solipsism. New contexts, created on the basis of local knowledge, will be meaningless to anyone outside of that locality. The solipsistic view leaves only one path open for creating a level playing field in the global KBE – everyone conforms to the same rules. On the other hand, by accepting an ontological reality, but rejecting its relevance, constructivists acknowledge that there are different ways of knowing and that, through recontextualization, they can be made meaningful for each other.
Knowledge and learning for equitable globalization
Whereas naturalized epistemology is concerned with how the world is seen, constructivism is concerned with how the world is defined. So for the constructivist the primary interest is in how subjective conceptualizations are formed and what they say about the world. Learning is therefore a process of defining concepts that may go through many iterations in a constant attempt to accurately portray that which is experienced. These two theories come together in the notion of a global KBE. The process of formulating an equitable definition of globalization is clearly a constructivist activity. The KBE is firmly grounded in the naturalistic notion of knowledge as a dynamic and holistic web of beliefs that is constantly being refined and expanded. From the two together emerges a notion of the global KBE as a learning economy that thrives on differences made all the more accessible by the diffusion of ICTs. The potential of the global KBE as a positive force is dependent on the spread of ICTs and that they provide real opportunities to all to actively participate in the global flow of information as both receivers and providers of information.
The OECD has an interesting peer review programme for assessing member states development policies and activities. This unique programme will be the subject of an ASEAN/OECD meeting later this month.
Under the peer review programme each country is reviewed every four years, resulting in 5-6 reviews each year. The latest review is of the United States, published shortly before last Christmas. Given the perceived leadership role of the US in international affairs and the global economy, it's quite a revealing report. Briefly, the conclusions reveal that:
- Development aid as a percentage of Gross National Income (GNI) is among the lowest in OECD countries (nevertheless, since the US has the largest GNI in the world, the total amount of their contribution is higher than that of any other country)
- The bulk of recent assistance has been for debt cancellation in Iraq and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, i.e. cleaning up their own mess!
- There is a lack of coherence in policy
- Policy is not oriented toward poverty reduction, i.e. the Millennium Development Goals
- Policy tends to reflect specific US policy priorities, i.e. development assistance seems oriented toward benefiting the US, not necessarily developing countries
- There is no coherent tracking system, i.e. vague ideas about what is being achieved, therefore little to build on
All of this is very reminiscent of Niall Ferguson's portrayal of the US in Colossus: the Rise and Fall of the American Empire, as a global force with imperialistic tendencies, although always in denial, but a lack of the committment required to make some actual good come out of it. The US report is in stark contrast to the UK report and the Netherlands report (one of very few countries that actually exceeds the United Nations ODA/GNI target of 0.7%), also from last year. There we see evidence of a concerted effort to make development aid work to the benefit of the recipients of aid. And this from two countries that were in the past blatantly imperialistic.
The story about Microsoft's translation of its software into Mapuzugun, a language spoken by about 400,000 indiginous Mapuche Indians in Chile, has been raising a lot of attention on the net. The Mapuche Indians want to take Microsoft to court for using their language without having consulted them to get their permission. The big question being raised concerns ownership of a language, i.e. can Mapuzugun be considered the intellectual property of the Mapuche Indians, and this is what the Mapuche Indians would like the courts to decide.
I suspect that the Microsoft translation project is related to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's plan to increase accessibility to ICTs in several developing countries, Chile being among them, by supplying public libraries with free computers and Internet connections. Of course, for such a project to be successful, they can hardly set up a bunch of computers with interfaces in English or other common languages, that are not commonly spoken by the anticipated beneficiaries of the project. But, and here is the other issue in this and the more serious one in my opinion, that computer software would be translated and localised without consulting the people concerned borders on the outrageous. It's like if Microsoft would suddenly tell francophones that the French word for a computer will henceforth be "le computer". Imagine the ruckus that that would cause!
The problem here is that the IT lingo, which I assume was lacking in the Mapuzugun language, is not being allowed to emerge from the cultural consciousness of the Mapuche, but is rather being imposed on them. This becomes a question of equity, meaning that if the language comes from the outside it is reflecting the knowledge and understanding of a foreign culture, and thereby, limiting the sense of ownership in the concept(s) being promoted, in this case of the Mapuche Indians and ICTs. Hence, ICTs are presented as a concept of outside origin to which the Mapuche Indians have to adapt rather than as a tool which the Mapuche Indians can adapt to their own needs. This simply goes against everything that ICTs are intended to promote in the context of development for a globalised knowledge-based economy.
People over at the UNDP's Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme (UNDP-APDIP) have caught on to the brilliance of Wikis. They've released a bunch of their "e-Primers" under a GFDL license onto Wikibooks. What this means is that they are free to be edited by YOU, me and everyone else.
Somewhere I read that 1 ICT year is roughly equal to 3 real years. So, if an e-Primer was published 3 years ago, that means it's at least 9 years outdated! But, now we can all go and update them to our hearts' content with examples of good/bad practice, new developments, etc., and, of course, I expect us all to do exactly that. Obviously, you'll most likely find me hangin' out around the ICTs in Education primer, although I'm sure I can find some other topics of interest in the vast amount of material available.
It would be great to see some other organisations do this.
There seem to be so many things going on these days. Maybe it's just that time of year or maybe I'm finally awaking from semi-hiatus. Either way, I'm probably going to cover a lot of news in this post.
Two of the more promintent items "du jour" are, of course, the China-Africa Summit and the Internet Governance Forum. Intriguing happenings on both fronts. Both of these, along with other not-as-visible things, underline the types of changes we are seeing, and will continue to see in the near future.
The China-Africa Summit is one more embodiment of what has been talked about for some time now, i.e. the changing relations in the global sphere being brought about by the rise of "new" economic powers, especially China and India. This summit makes it quite clear that China is looking to build economic ties with African countries to strengthen their position (although not only - I was recently at a meeting here in Iceland with a delegation of 30-35 people from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Education that were on a world tour stretching right around the globe to build educational and business ties. Talk about thinking big!). Hopefully this is good news for Africa, but there is a justified measure of scepticism concerning the reputation of the benefactor. For instance, it would be great of the budding relationship between Africa and China would result in better telecommunications connections for Africa, but hopefully their use would not be managed the same way China manages its own communications infrastructure.
The Internet Governance Forum is in my opinion very confused. Governance involves the the exercise of authority to manage a consistent societal structure. I don't see this as being applicable to the Internet as such. The issues that are increasingly being raised under the auspices of "Internet governance", eg. access,
diversity and basic rights, are not exclusive to the Internet. These are issues that need to be addressed outside of cyberspace. We are not nearly "virtual" yet. Therefore there is no sense in trying to govern a space that is not inhabited, per se. For the time being, Internet governance should focus on the things that we can hope to govern, i.e. technical issues such as interoperability and domain management.
Several different points of view on the Internet Governance Forum's inaugural meeting.
Another interesting thing worth mentioning:
Potential car of the future?
This is so cool! The sad thing is that it seems that each time one of these breakthrough ideas that will radically change energy consumption emerges, it seems to quietly disappear and things go on as before... (I remember reading about a revolutionary alternative to washing machines many years ago that was said to be on its way to the market shortly - never happened.) They can't all be bad ideas, can they?
As Negroponte, the "granddaddy" of the project, has said, the project is not a technology project, it is an educational project. The examples illustrated in the article show that, as an educational project, it extends not only to the children that are eventually destined to work with the laptops, but also to developers all over the world, to help them better understand the needs of computer users in developing countries - an important aspect that I've hinted at before.
The United Nations University (UNU), a network of specialised research and knowledge sharing programs, has announced that it has joined the OpenCourseWare Consortium (OCW Consortium). The OCW Consortium is an initiative which I believe was launched by MIT after they started offering free access to MIT course descriptions, syllabi, reading lists, lecture notes, etc.. Opencourseware is based partly on the notion of open source software, i.e. making courseware freely available for anyone to use for their own learning, as a model for their own courses, etc.. The limitation that MIT has set is that opencourseware does not provide access to MIT teaching staff and can not be used to receive any recognition or qualifications from MIT.
I think it's great that the UNU is doing this. It is certainly in the spirit of the UN and the ideal of an "information society open to all". The UNU's involvement in this initiative may certainly produce an important resource for individuals and organisations the world over. But, I think there is a slight flaw in the current thinking about opencourseware which limits somewhat its potential.
Open source software is based on complex communities that involve themselves in projects for many different reasons. Most importantly, although open source initiatives form around the production of specific artifacts, i.e. the software source code, they are process based, with the primary focus on two processes; knowledge development and making something better (Raymond's "bazaar" analogy). Not everyone agrees to this description of open source communities (some focus more on the concept of "free/libre"), but I think that this description is the one that has the most significance for other communities interested in integrating elements of open source communities. What is important about open source communities in this regard is the way they work and the tools they use. What I feel is missing from the opencourseware initiative, when I look at the matter from this perspective is, the dynamic change in open source and the tools that make it possible to track changes, what prompted them, who made them, how they were made,. etc.. Imagine if one could track the evolution of a single course over years and across circumstances and read about why one text was replace with another over the years, etc.. I think this would be far more informative than the simple static descriptive resources being made available through opencourseware initiatives.
So, while I applaud the OCW Consortium and the UNU for its commitment to the initiative, I think a lot more could be done with the basic idea to make it even more useful. Things to consider:
Standardised means of describing courseware (open metadata model)
Concurrent versioning systems (CVS) for courseware
Promote change and encourage sharing (gpl-type license)
I came across an entry on the APC.ORG blog site the other day about the lack of submarine fibre cables to and from the African continent. They point to an interesting map of submarine cables throughout the world and point out the difference between the African continent and other parts of the world. While the difference is quite dramatic, I'm afraid the problem is more complex and serious than is implied.
Obviously, the map being referred to is very stylistic and perhaps not the most informative representation of the data. For instance, one thing that is not at all clear from this map is that Northern Africa, on the Mediterranean Sea, is probably the best connected part of the continent. But, more seriously, the map fails to show that the problem is not merely the lack of connections to and from the continent, it is in how those connections are managed inside and outside the continent. For instance, let's consider Australia. On the map we can see that Australia does not appear to be significantly better connected than Africa (if we accept that the map is not accurately portraying submarine cables linking to Northern Africa). Yet, Australia is number 11 on the Network Readiness Index, far higher than any African country (Tunis is number 31).
For a more complete picture of the connectivity issues in Africa see the two articles linked to in this post.
Newsweek-International Edition this week (Aug. 21-28, 2006) has several reports about higher education. The main piece is about newly published rankings of universities throughout the world. Among the factors used to determine the rankings are number of international faculty and students. Several follow-up articles discuss internationalisation from various points of view. One of the articles is written by Tony Blair and is a reiteration of what is increasingly being heard throughout Europe, asking how universities can maintain their autonomy and increase the revenues. As I'm sure most people know, most European universities are bound by law to offer free or nearly free education. Allowing them to charge tuition requires changing the laws and this is a difficult task since there are still many people with the support of fairly strong political parties that oppose university tuitions. The question then is how can universities increase their revenue without charging tuition? As I read the articles, some of which argue for a more business-like approach to the operation of universities, I started thinking about universities as businesses. That led to me thinking about the outsourcing boom in global business today. Not just the obvious much talked about outsourcing like call centres in India, etc., but more about the intricate relationship building that Friedman talks about in The World is Flat. Friedman describes how a single project may be outsourced and re-outsourced so that in the end the product is produced in components all over the world using expertise being developed within specific regions. It finally dawned on me that with modern ICTs the same thing can be done with a lot of the scientific research that goes on within universities and research centres. Basically, pass the data around and have the analysis done where the expertise is greatest. Obviously, this does already happen to some extent, but I'm talking about boiling it down to simple business - send us your data and tell us what you want done with it and we'll send you the results. As I thought more about this I started asking myself whether this might even be formulated as viable knowledge-building development aid - outsource data processing to universities in developing countries. Think of it as an affordable way to involve universities in developing countries in research being carried out at top universities while building relationships with other universities world-wide.
Being prone to bouts of severe realism, I thought, this can't be such a bright idea that no one thought about it before! So off I went on the Internet in search of similar ideas and lo and behold - UK to outsource research to India. This could offer some very interesting possibilities...
Many visitors to my blog end up here in their quest for simple definitions of key terms related to the ICT for development agenda. So I've decided to start compiling a glossary of ICT4D terms. I am going to place a link or menu over here on the left to provide easy access to this glossary. Of course, any and all assistance will be much appreciated in the form of comments, suggestions, etc.. Anyone interested in contributing can leave a comment to this post or email me at tryggvi_bt@yahoo.com.
Time for another installment related to my quest to unravel the deep hidden meanings of the Millennium Declaration (UNMD), the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), globalization, ICTs, etc.. If the UNMD is about globalization, which it largely is, the referenced document concerning ICTs, the ECOSOC 2000 Ministerial Declaration (ECOSOC2K) is primarily about the knowledge-based economy (KBE). In the following essay I discuss what the knowledge-based economy is and how it relates to globalization, ICTs and development education. This is meant to be read as a continuation of my previous posting about globalization in the context of the UNMD and the MDGs. Click below to read on...
The UN Millennium Declaration (UNMD) doesn't say much about ICTs, other than that they should be available to all. Yet, the ICT4D agenda is largely based on the UNMD and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) derived from the UNMD. Luckily for us, the UNMD does indicate that what is referred to as "the benefits" of ICTs is explained in the ECOSOC 2000 Ministerial Declaration (ECOSOC2K). Looking at the ECOSOC2K, we find that, according to ECOSOC, the primary justification for promoting ICTs is the emergence of the knowledge-based economy (KBE). The ECOSOC2K does not define the "knowledge-based economy", other than stating that (ECOSOC2K, pg. 2):
"The emerging new economy, characterized by a rapidly increasing reliance of value creation on information and knowledge, still remains concentrated in the developed countries. Unless access to and use of ICT is broadened, the majority of people particularly in the developing countries will not enjoy the benefits of the new knowledge-based economy."
While this doesn't exactly provide us with a useful definition of the concept, it does indicate that ICTs are necessary for the KBE and that this new economy can, and should, be beneficial to all. On the other hand, while at least providing a hint of what a KBE is meant to be, the use of language similar to the UNMD blurs the distinction, if there was one to begin with, between globalization, as discussed in the UNMD, and the KBE. This raises the question whether globalization and the KBE are intended to be understood as one and the same, entirely separate, or inextricably linked?
According to Godin (2006) the current concept of a knowledge-based economy (KBE) can be traced back to the beginning of the OECD's "National Innovation Systems" (NSI) project. The project was launched in the early 1990's to encourage member states to formulate policies that "... maximise performance and well-being in “knowledge-based economies� – economies which are directly based on the production, distribution and use of knowledge and information." (OECD, 1996).
Godin (2006) identifies two distinct focuses in NSI related literature:
- Institutional focus - Emphasis is on the importance of formal institutions within member states, as producers of knowledge and innovation, and the regulations that govern those institutions.
- Theoretical focus - Emphasis is on the nature of knowledge and learning as a process that contributes to the flow of information and knowledge.
Godin goes on to claim that the concept of a KBE, as it is currently understood, emerged from the theoretically focused discourse (pg. 18), which was led by B. A. Lundvall, former deputy director of the OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry. Instead of focusing on the institutional infrastructure with it's traditional notion of R&D departments as the centers of innovation and knowledge creation, Lundvall heralded the emergence of a "learning society" in which everyone is, by virtue of their inherent capacity for renewing existing knowledge, a potential source of innovation (Lundvall, 1992; Lundvall and Johnson, 1994). Hence, for an economy that seeks to capitalize on innovative ideas, knowledge becomes the primary resource and learning the primary process for generating useable resources. But, Lundvall's notion of a "learning society" (or "learning economy" (Johnson and Lundvall, 2001)), is meant to address more than just the need for innovation in a KBE. The rise of the KBE, as a learning economy, is a reaction to globalization with its increasingly rapid changes in global relations, global markets, and the way we conduct our lives. In Lundvall's conceptualization of the KBE, the way to deal with such rapid change is to prepare individuals for a lifetime of continuous learning. But, in recent literature, the KBE has more commonly been defined in terms of the economic returns that can be expected from existing and new knowledge (Harris, 2001; Godin, 2006). In this discourse, that is increasingly focused on devising means to account for knowledge (like traditional bookkeeping), Lundvall's emphasis on the "learning process" is pushed to the background. The resulting conceptualization of knowledge as a pseudo-tangible resource that can be collected and passed around fuels the blurring of the distinction between globalization and the KBE, because globalization is often associated with the transfer of knowledge and culture.
The notion of the KBE presented in the ECOSOC2K leans more toward Lundvall's "theoretical" conceptualization. Section 14. (pg. 4) includes a lengthy list of recommendations for national programs intended to promote development with the aid of ICTs in the context of the KBE. These recommendations can be characterized in terms of four general processes related to the shift toward thinking in terms of knowledge products:
- Production - generate knowledge and use it.
- Acquisition - access to information that reflects various perspectives.
- Absorption - learning from others.
- Dissemination - teaching others.
All of these clearly relate to the theoretical conceptualization of the KBE, emphasizing learning and information/knowledge sharing and use. Nevertheless, the ECOSOC2K states these in terms of both human resource development, i.e. the theoretical aspect, and institutions and networks, i.e. the institutional aspect. Potential conflict between these two aspects is avoided by presenting the institutional aspect as a means of providing "a conducive environment for the rapid diffusion, development and use of information technology" (pg. 4) whereas "Investment in education, including basic and digital literacy, remains the fundamental way of developing human capacity and should be at the heart of any national, regional and international information technology strategy." (pg. 3). So, clearly, the institutional aspect of the KBE is seen as an infrastructural issue meant to be addressed in a manner that will facilitate and promote the theoretical notion of a "learning economy".
Previously, I posed a question about the nature of the relationship between globalization and the KBE. The current conceptualization of globalization owes a lot to the spread of neo-liberal policies that have influenced institutional and organizational regulations, giving rise to the creation of a supraterritorial space in which these entities function. The institutional view of the KBE equates it with the regulatory mechanisms that make globalization possible. Hence, if we accept the institutional view of the KBE the distinction between the two is very unclear. On the other hand, if we take the theoretical view of the KBE, as a market based on "knowledge products", i.e. products based on the knowledge of individuals, the two are quite distinct and not even necessarily connected. We can easily imagine such a KBE without the global supraterritorial space, ex. as increased mobility of knowledgeable workers within a traditional territorial space. A concrete example would be the proliferation of information technology consultants. This is a profession that has seen a dramatic increase in numbers over the past few decades. Nevertheless, in the case of software-based problem-solvers (i.e. that do not work with hardware or create software), they do not necessarily market any specific tangible products or skills. Their business may be entirely based on what they know and their work may have little or nothing to do with globalization (as long as we allow ourselves to disregard the business concerns of their clients).
The views of the relationship between globalization and the KBE as the one and the same or as entirely distinct are not likely to produce any helpful long-term development benefits. Both fail to address what we actually see happening in the world as a result of what these concepts claim to describe, i.e. the increasingly rapid rate of change on a global scale. Thomas Friedman (2004)documents several examples of currently ongoing changes in his book, The World is Flat. Perhaps the most dramatic of these are the changes taking place as a result of the rise of the ICT-based service-sector in India. "Services" in this context basically applies to any process that can be facilitated through the transfer of information, including support services, accounting, industrial design, software programming, etc.. This market is largely based on the outsourcing of knowledge intensive services from countries geographically located far from India. The results of the changes that this entails are not obvious to everyone (especially consumers of these services), but within specific professions they are painfully obvious. Since certain knowledge intensive and specific services can now be obtained very cheaply from far away from where they are actually needed, professionals within the locales from where these services were traditionally obtained have had to redefine the nature of their business. This has meant that individuals have had to re-educate themselves just to be able to make effective use of their previous knowledge and stay relevant within their fields. And, as the traditional service providers continue to expand their knowledge, so do the outsourcees, creating a global flow of knowledge needs and development.
This then brings us back to Lundvall's theoretical conceptualization of the KBE as a learning economy. The notion of the KBE as a learning economy captures the needs associated with the increased global dispersion of services and production processes. Because these are increasingly subject to rapid change, individuals need to be able to educate and re-educate themselves constantly based on developments that may be going on anywhere in the world. Furthermore, to be able to adequately evaluate their changing knowledge needs, they need to be able to stay abreast of local and distant developments. Hence, the KBE emerges not as a result of the marketability of specific "knowledge products", but the marketability of the ability to adapt and change through continuous learning. What ties the KBE to globalization is that both are based on and rely on ICTs (Thurow, 2000; Harris, 2001). Without ICTs, global supraterritoriality, i.e. the space in which transactions increasingly take place, would be hindered by the need to deal with traditional territorial concerns, such as transportation, monetary exchange, regulatory issues, etc.. In the context of the KBE, ICTs are necessary to access, generate and share knowledge and information needed to enter and maintain relevance within the global supraterritoriality. The ECOSOC2K clearly makes these connections between ICTs, continuous learning and the KBE. But, it also recognizes the difficulties faced by many developing regions of the world, primarily the lack of infrastructure needed to implement ICTs in a useful manner. The UNMD, on the other hand, integrates the ECOSOC2K concerns about the KBE into a broader agenda concerned with globalization. Together these form the type of whole consistent with Lundvall's conceptualization of the KBE as a learning economy for maximizing the potential benefits of globalization.
The ECOSOC2K is crucial to defining and understanding the ICT4D agenda in the context of the UNMD and the MDGs. Because ECOSOC2K relates the goals of ICTs in development work to the KBE understood primarily as a "learning economy", learning becomes an inherent overarching concept throughout the ICT4D agenda. The concept of lifelong learning, in the sense of the "Delors Report" (The UNESCO Delors Report: Learning: The Treasure Within), i.e. "lifelong, lifewide and lifedeep", is central to the view of the KBE, as an open and democratic environment where knowledge is generated, shared and utilized, that is presented in ECOSOC2K. Therefore, when considering the impact of ICT4D initiatives, we should also consider their potential to foster learning environments consistent with the concept of lifelong learning. This would include the ability to critically analyze and utilize existing information for personal and institutional benefit, and the ability and self-confidence to generate and share existing and new knowledge in a global marketplace of ideas.
I came across an article today which was included in the UN ICT Task Force newsfeed. It's a commentary written by Nalaka Gunawardene on the SciDev.Net web about the new UN Global Alliance for ICT and Development (UN-GAID). Gunawardene is very critical of this new collaborative effort while he acknowledges the need to "link up the thousands of communications technology initiatives littered across the developing world". Gunawardene goes on to criticize the emphasis on computer-based communication technologies claiming that better established technologies, such as radio, television and mobile telephony, should receive more attention.
First of all, I think Gunawardene is wrong about the purpose of UN-GAID. I have not come across any literature related to the UN-GAID that suggests that the alliance will, or should, "link up [...] initiatives littered across the developing world". The UN-GAID is intended to function as a multi-stakeholder platform, i.e. bringing together the different players involved in development and the different aspects of the rapidly changing global economy. The question of linking the many existing initiatives may be a valid one (even though I can also think of arguments for a broad range of approaches), but it is certainly not one that the UN-GAID is specifically intended to address.
Gunawardene suggests that for many developing regions the jump to computer-based communication technologies is pre-mature. He therefore calls for "a broader strategy to gradually integrate ICTs into our societies". Gunawardene's representation of the issues involved ignores the forces that the ICT4D agenda aims to address. The goal is not to bring developing countries up to par "sooner or later", it is to adapt the development agenda to the increasingly rapid changes that impact the lives of everyone on a global basis. If we are to adopt a "gradual integration" approach, developing countries are likely to fall further and further behind as technological and related developments continue to speed up. We are rapidly doing away with the need for prohibitively expensive infrastructures to facilitate the adoption of computer-based communication technologies. So, why should we wait to implement them?
Lastly, Gunawardene does not seem to realize that there is a fundamental difference between the impact of mass broadcast-based communication technologies, such as radio and television, and computer-based communication technologies. While mass communication technologies can facilitate the dissemination of information, since it is a one-way, few-to-many communication technology, it is easily controlled and the audience is given little choice in what information it receives. Computer-based technologies, on the other hand, are controlled by the individual and are multi-directional, i.e. the individual can access information and can pass on information. That sort of empowerment on an individual basis is not realistic with mass communication technologies.
I'm certainly not suggesting that the UN-GAID is above criticism, but I think Gunawardene's criticisms mostly miss the point, and hence miss their mark.
Several months ago I posted an analysis of the UN Millennium Declaration (UNMD). One of the things I mentioned was the stated goal of the UNMD, to promote globalization in a positive light and to ensure that everyone benefits equally from it. I went on to provide a very brief definition of "globalization", just enough to serve my purposes at the time. Nevertheless, it's clear that globalization is a very complex concept that requires more attention (probably even more than I may ever have the opportunity to devote to the subject). What I would like to do now is to present a brief overview of my current understanding of the concept based on recent literature. This is certainly not the only definition of globalization, but I believe it is one of very few ways of defining it in a manner that is consistent with the goals of the UNMD. (Note: references are incomplete. I'll fix this in the next couple of days.)
Click below to read on...
The concept "globalization" is often characterized as a hopelessly vague concept that can, and will be used to justify any number of ideologies or world views. While there are those that feel that this is sufficient reason to abolish the concept, others see this as an indication of healthy discourse contributing to the formulation of a meaningful concept (Bartelson, Robertson & Khondker). What is being suggested by the latter group is that concepts like "globalization" do not refer to 'things' that we can identify or point to. Rather, that they attempt to capture the current conceptual state of our attempts to construct meaningful expressions about the world around us through our discourse. As such, these concepts are constantly undergoing change both through our attempts to apply them and our attempts to understand them. This is certainly consistent with what has already been said about globalization as it is construed in the UNMD, where globalization is portrayed as something that can, and presumably will be, ultimately understood as a positive force for all citizens of the world. Therefore by setting such goals, the signatories of the UNMD have committed to encouraging and enabling discourse amongst all citizens of the world to shape our ultimate understanding of globalization.
There is a tendency to define globalization in terms of metaphorical relations with past and current elements of changing international relations. Scholte (cite) has identified typical definitions that follow this model:
1. Globalization as internationalization – In this context, globalization is identified with increasing interdependence between nation-states primarily in the form of economic transactions. As such, Scholte sees this as simply placing a “globalization� label on the older notion of “international relations�.
2. Globalization as liberalization – In this context, globalization is equated with the economic policies of neoliberalism that promote an open and “borderless� global economy. Scholte points out that neoliberalism is not a necessary component of globalization and that other policy frameworks are available.
3. Globalization as universalization – In this context, globalization is used to describe the homogenization effects of global transfer of products, cultures and ideas. Scholte points out that the exchange of culture and policy is not a new phenomenon.
4. Globalization as Westernization – In this context, globalization refers to a specific type of universalization that is commonly identified with U.S. culture and is seen as a cultural colonization rather than homogenization. Scholte does not reject the idea that Westernization and globalization may be connected, but points out that this is no reason to equate the two since future globalization could take a different direction.
5. Globalization as supraterritoriality - In this context, globalization describes the spatial and temporal reconfigurations in our social space. This definition of globalization identifies “… the planet – the earthly world as a whole – as a site of social relations in its own right.�
Scholte rejects the first four definitions purely on pragmatic grounds in that they do not provide new insights into the nature of international relationships or are not useful for the present discourse. In a certain sense, this is in keeping with what has been said before, i.e. that the concept of globalization is shaped by discourse and that our primary concern is to ensure that the resulting concept is a positive one. On the other hand, what Scholte seems prepared to overlook is that the definitions that he rejects must, since they are presented as legitimate definitions by others, reflect someone's impression of globalization. As such, they cannot be simply discarded, but must be dealt with in the context of the current discourse.
Bartelson (cite) offers a simpler classification of existing definitions of globalization; as transference, as transformation, and as transcendence. This classification is, for the most part, consistent with Scholte's, although Bartelson groups some of Scholte's elements into more general categories. What is different about Bartelson's classification is that he portrays these categories in terms of the direction of the impact of globalizing forces, with transference operating "inside out" (pg. 184), transformance operating "outside in" (pg. 187), and transcendence "[dissolving] the divide between inside and outside." (pg. 189). While Scholte portrays his distinct categories of globalization as separate discourses, some of which can easily be dismissed, Bartelson sees these as necessary elements for understanding and supporting the current discourse in which "the global" is portrayed as a distinct domain, or in Scholte's terms, the "supraterritorial" domain.
Scholte's conceptualization of "globalization as supraterritoriality" is the only one of the five that he identifies that he does not reject. He and Bartelson, with his "globalization as transcendence", seem to be in agreement that this is an accurate portrayal of globalization in contemporary discourse, although they don't entirely agree on how we got here or how we carry that discourse forward.
This concept of globalization as supraterritoriality identifies “… the planet – the earthly world as a whole – as a site of social relations in its own right.� This is not to say that social relations across the planet are a recent development, these have certainly existed in many forms before. The change that Scholte is describing with this definition is that in the past these relations have had a distinct territorial character because of the time and distance involved in transfer along these connections. In the present environment, these relations take place in one global territory, either over the Internet or in “global cities�, such as London or Tokyo. Exchanges that are conducted in these spaces do not necessarily involve transfers across vast physical spaces and are therefore nearly instantaneous. Nevertheless, this is not to say that supraterritoriality has replaced territoriality, rather that it adds a layer of complexity to relations between territories (Scholte pg. 26). Interactions that eventually take place in the supraterritorial space still tend to originate in traditional territories, ex. business transactions are conducted in territorial currencies, computer users access the Internet from territorial locations, and products that are bought and sold in the supraterritorial space usually end up in territorial locations. Whether or not supraterritoriality will replace territoriality remains to be seen. This possibility is at least not ruled out. Indeed, the exchange of “virtual� goods, such as Internet domains or game-related valuables, may be indications of what is to come.
It is clear from the discourse on globalization that “... a rapid and sustained shift is occurring in the ways we learn and do things.� (Stromquist & Monkman, 2000). What drives these changes is first and foremost developments in ICTs (Singh, 1999). Scholte’s definition of globalization as supraterritoriality echoes these concerns in its emphasis on the increasing importance of ICTs in global relations, and consequently the increasing importance of information and knowledge related work that goes with it. While we can identify examples of knowledge successfully transcending borders throughout human history without modern ICTs (Kanwen, 2001), it is the speed and ease with which information now flows that gives rise to the issues commonly related to globalization in current times. As the discourse on globalization is increasingly facilitated by ICTs, and therefore shaped by ICTs, it becomes crucial that to ensure that the emerging concept of globalization is equitable for all, that everyone is able to use those technologies to participate in the discourse.
This brings us to the significance of globalization for the UNMD and MDGs. The aim of the international development community is to ensure that the supraterritorial global space is one which welcomes and reflects the values of all concerned. In terms of development needs, this means ensuring equal and equitable access to the supraterritorial space and the discourse and social interactions it facilitates. Most important for the achievement of these goals are education and ICTs. In this context, the primary role for education is to empower individuals and communities to participate in the discourse that is constantly shaping our conceptualization of globalization and the primary tools for this are ICTs. Therefore, we can conclude that the promotion of ICTs are central to any and all development efforts. This includes adapting ICTs to the needs of developing countries and providing individuals with the skills and self-confidence needed to engage with the global community on a wide range of matters and for a wide range of tasks. Adaptation of technology can include developing technologies that can operate in environments with little or no access to traditional communications infrastructure or electricity, designing interfaces that suit different cultures, ex. multi-lingual applications, meaningful visual representations, etc.. The skills needed include, but are certainly not limited to, literary skills, numerical skills, basic computer skills (including network related skills), information and communications skills (i.e. ability to critically evaluate information and contribute to discourse) and awareness of ethical concerns related to the use ICTs to engage with a global population. These are very general needs and should not be considered to be separable from any single context. These pertain equally to developed, as well as developing countries and should be considered necessary elements in any activity, be it related to education, health, business management, daily life, etc..
The inaugural meeting of the newly established Global Alliance for ICT and Development (GAID) starts next week, June 19th. This is certainly an interesting development and I'm anxious to see what comes out of the meeting. I think that the multi-sectoral approach could prove to be very beneficial.
The selection of Intel's Craig Barrett as chairman I think is an excellent choice. Not only is he extremely qualified for the task, but he also seems to be genuinely dedicated to addressing the problems faced by developing countries today in an equitable and meaningful manner.
This is just very, very sad: CNN.com - Official: Africans pay $1,800 for 1GB of data - May 18, 2006.
Just in case you're still missing something regarding the $100 laptop: RED HERRING | Q&A: Nicholas Negroponte
There was a fair amount of disappointment with the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). As far as the two primary issues that were expected to be addressed by the summit, internet governance and the Digital Solidarity Fund, are concerned, nothing really happened. But, since the summit ended there have been some things trickling down the pipeline - some more interesting than others. The newest announcement related to the WSIS is the launch of the GLOBAL ALLIANCE FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES AND DEVELOPMENT. The announcement for this alliance is actually quite interesting for several reasons. First of all it emphasizes that the Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) will not be achieved unless ICTs are effectively integrated into development activities across the board. This may not seem new - the MDGs do mention ICTs and the need for ICTs in development efforts. But, this announcement goes further in stating that the success of development efforts depends on the integration of ICTs. Secondly is the makeup of the alliance. It is meant to be a "multi-stakeholder" collaboration that goes far beyond the traditional make-up of groups working on development in that it should include non- and under-represented groups and that these groups are intended to collaborate.
It will certainly be interesting to see what comes out of this.
Seems like there's a lot of talk about open source software in regards to development these days.
The BBC's Bill Thompson has an interesting story on open source software in India: BBC NEWS | Technology | India lays down 'open' challenge
Among other things, he touches on the isolation of Indian coders. There are Indian special interest groups, coders are doing much more than simply localising existing software and there is a lot of government support, but there is a lack of project that are really focused on solving Indian problems. This seems like it could be a sort of chicken-or-the-egg question similar to the "who gets ICT first, student or the teacher?" I mention in a previous post. Especially when we consider that open source software relies on the voluntary feedback of real users to identify problems. Maybe the issue is that they need more users rather than government support...
This sounds very interesting. Too bad I don't get BBC World! Maybe it'll be available for free download after the BBC airing...
Coming Soon: The Code Breakers - a BBC World Documentary on FOSS and Development
Intel to design a cheap laptop and put $1 billion into teacher training worldwide. Intel to Offer Its Own Plan for Global Internet Access - New York Times
At some point sometime, Negroponte, of the $100 laptop project, said that he didn't feel that teacher training was the right way to go in a development sense, better to target the children. I agree with him up to a certain point. I wouldn't rule out the teacher training route because I feel that to maximize the benefits of ICTs as a learning technology for a learning society they need to be integrated into the classroom and therefore teachers will be an issue sooner or later. I think that as long as people are aware of the difficulties and time factors involved in targeting the teachers they should be able to design programmes that work.
Intel's site about the World Ahead programme is here: Intel - World Ahead.
Negroponte seems to have briefly addressed some of the criticisms that we've been hearing about the $100 laptop recently from Microsoft executives and others: Wired News: Laptop Detractors Shrugged Off
See also Slashdot.org for many many MANY comments.
This years report has been published:
World Economic Forum - Global Information Technology Report
There's an incredible amount of movement over the years in the Network Readiness Index. It's not entirely clear to me what of these changes are due to actual progress in the area, changes in the way the index is formulated, or both. Nevertheless, there is some very interesting information in this generally optimistic report that specifically highlights the transformative power of ICTs.
Also check out the interactive map that comes with it. Mac users will need to use a browser other than Safari to view it because the Flash compatibility check doesn't catch the relevant info on Safari.
World Information Access Project - 2006 Briefing Booklet - See also the main web site here.
This report is based on existing data from a variety of sources, so don't expect anything too earth shattering. I think some of the assumption might be stretching it a bit. For instance, finding #4 of the five that are mentioned concludes that "developing countries - especially countries in Latin America - are putting more cultural content online than they are pouring into books." As far as I can tell, the internet part of this claim is based entirely on the number of web hosts in each country. Going from there to cultural content seems a bit of a leap to me.
It's Sunday - time for a big post! A few days ago I posted a couple of things about Negroponte's $100 laptop. One of the things that I mentioned was the common criticism, which extends to ICTs for development in general, that there are more pressing problems in developing countries than the lack of ICTs. This got me thinking about how we justify the ICT4D agenda and sent me back to the Millennium Declaration in a quest for answers. What follows is a fairly lengthy analysis of the Millennium Declaration, what it says about ICTs for development and how this relates to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). What it boils down to is that the Millennium Declaration and the MDGs do make it clear that ICTs should be leveraged in whatever way possible to facilitate development efforts. But, to get a complete picture of how they are to do this and what are the intended outcomes, we have to look beyond both the Millennium Declaration and the MDGs. Click below to read on...
--------------------------
It's fairly widely recognized that information and communication technologies (ICTs) are important for developing countries, although there are always a few who differ in their opinions. One of the primary defining documents for current development efforts is the UN's Millennium Declaration (UNMD) on which the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are based. What I want to do here is to analyze the UNMD to determine what it actually says, or suggests, regarding ICTs and development, and especially, education. As I've mentioned in the past, documents of this nature are sometimes criticized for being rather vague in terms of their descriptive and prescriptive function. This is not entirely a fair criticism because these types of documents need to be regarded as living documents that can continue to serve their function even though the issues that they aim to address change over time. Therefore what is perceived as vagueness or ambiguity, is better described as a necessary openness to allow for different interpretations in a rapidly changing world.
The primary aim of the UNMD, as stated in the document itself, is to acknowledge globalization and promote it in a positive light. It is claimed that the central challenge for development is to ensure that the benefits of globalization are evenly shared and distributed. The implications of these claims are that development efforts must focus on the need to create a shared future and that this requires that policies and measures that affect the global population must correspond to the needs of all, especially developing countries.
So what is the view of globalization that is being promoted here? Well, the UNMD doesn't tell us that, but I think we do have to be clear about it. Obviously, globalization means different things to different people at different times. But, in a general sense, I would say that what we refer to as globalization concerns the increasing interconnectedness of social institutions due to growth in international trade and internationalization of production processes, fueled by the increased speed at which information is transferred across the world. The key words here are "interconnectedness", "international trade and production processes", and "information". Hence, globalization is an economic trend that transcends borders by making use of information technologies. If we accept this definition, I don't see how we can discuss globalization, as it presents itself today, without acknowledging the central importance of ICTs to the concept itself. So, we see, right at the outset, that although ICTs are have not been explicitly mentioned yet, they are of central importance to the primary aims of the UNMD.
ICTs are not mentioned in the UNMD until in section 20, and then only in a very vague context. There it is stated that we need "To ensure that the benefits of new technologies, especially information and communication technologies, in conformity with recommendations contained in the ECOSOC 2000 Ministerial Declaration (ECOSOC2K), are available to all." Hence, ICTs should be available to all, but to find out why, we have to look at the ECOSOC2K. This is important, because, while the UNMD is vague about the purpose of ICTs, the ECOSOC2K is not. It specifically address the relationship between ICTs, the knowledge-based economy and development as is made quite clear in the subtitle of the document, "Development and international cooperation in the twenty-first century: the role of information technology in the context of a knowledge-based global economy." Paragraph 2. clarifies this position, where it states that "... [ICTs] are central to the creation of the emerging global knowledge-based economy and can play an important role in accelerating growth, in promoting sustainable development and eradicating poverty in developing countries as well as countries with economies in transition and in facilitating their effective integration into the global economy."
The ECOSOC2K goes on to make a very good case for ICTs for development in terms of capacity building and providing opportunities for change. Furthermore, it associates goals with economical prospects that are consistent with a global society that values all kinds of knowledge. It places great emphasis on the importance of harnessing the potential of ICTs in education to increase human and institutional capacity to access, utilize and generate knowledge. This is seen as necessary to create a conducive environment for participation in international markets. What is especially interesting about these recommendations, is that these last few points are stated in general terms and may be taken to apply equally to developed and developing countries. Though this is not explicitly stated, we can surmise that it is the authors' belief that the goals being promoted are of equal value to everyone. That is to say, that developed countries will benefit from the inclusion of developing countries in the knowledge-based society, not only the other way around, because we are creating an "emerging global knowledge-based economy" that requires input from diverse sources.
The overall language of ECOSOC2K and how the knowledge-based economy is construed, suggests certain approaches to education. The knowledge-based economy is considered to be based on widespread generation and utilization of knowledge. The goal then for human resource development is to strengthen "... the production, acquisition, absorption and dissemination of knowledge products." Integration in the knowledge-based economy is therefore based on specific processes, with which we can associate certain key skills:
knowledge production: the ability to use and generate knowledge,
knowledge acquisition: the ability to locate and evaluate relevant knowledge,
knowledge absorption: the ability to learn from others' knowledge,
knowledge dissemination: the ability to produce reflections of one's own knowledge, i.e. information, to share with others for their learning benefit (see here for why I say "reflections of knowledge").
It would be absurd to deny the importance of literacy and computer skills, and it is by no means my intention to do so. What I wish to highlight is that this view of the knowledge-based economy suggests additional skills that are central to the need for "capacity building" and a "conducive environment" described in the ECOSOC2K. These are the skills that are not necessarily directly related to the use of ICTs, but are indirectly related, and necessary, as they constitute the key skills related to an ICT driven knowledge-based economy. Hence, the justification for ICTs in development education is clear - these are the tools that define the knowledge-based economy, just as machines were the tools that defined the industrial age. But it is not enough that people are able to use the tools, they have to be able to use them in a way that is consistent with the values of the society that they are meant to serve. In this instance, that means being able to engage in knowledge work and to be able to use ICTs to maximize the outcomes of that work.
It is very clear that this is the thinking behind the ECOSOC2K. Since the UNMD references the ECOSOC2K to clarify the role of ICTs in development efforts, the cultivation of skills related to the knowledge-based economy are encompassed by the MDGs. Since ICTs are only mentioned in target 7 of goal 8, which states, "In cooperation with the private sector, make available the benefits of new technologies - especially information and communications technologies", we have to assume that this goal is related to section 20 of the UNMD, and therefore, further defined by the ECOSOC2K. The alternative is to concede that this important section of the UNMD simply didn't make it into the MDGs. In any case, it is clearly stated in the UNMD and therefore a concrete resolution of the UN General Assembly, and I think that WSIS was intended to illustrate the development community's commitment to ICTs for development.
This interpretation raises the question of whether efforts to monitor and measure the impact of initiatives related to the UNMD and the MDGs are measuring what has been outlined above, i.e. the promotion of skills related to the knowledge-based economy. There are some good examples, such as infoDev's "Monitoring and evaluation of ICT in education projects", which includes an excellent chapter on indicators that specifically discusses the "Learning of “21st century� skills". There are also rather dismal examples, like "Core ICT indicators" which was produced by the UN's "Partnership on measuring ICT for development" project. This publication that was presented at last years WSIS Phase II does little more than measure access to ICTs, and a limited number of ICT related activities that focus more on the information consumer aspects of ICT use, rather than knowledge production use. ECOSOC2K repeatedly mentions the need for synergy and coherence in development strategies. There is clearly a gap in that regard as far as knowledge work skills are concerned. Providing accurate and relevant indicators is extremely important because, not only do they provide a picture of what has been done, they also reflect the priorities of the development community, have an impact on what types of projects are funded and they affect policy and decision making.
Another interesting twist that ECOSOC2K puts on ICTs in development work is that, because the goals are specifically related to the knowledge-based economy, pedagogy becomes an inherent overarching concept throughout the ICT for development agenda. The concept of lifelong learning, in the "Delors" sense, i.e. "lifelong, lifewide and lifedeep", is central to the view of the knowledge-based economy that is presented in ECOSOC2K, i.e. an open and democratic environment where knowledge is continuously generated, shared and utilized. Therefore, when considering the impact of ICT for development initiatives, we should also consider their potential to foster learning environments consistent with the concept of lifelong learning. This would include the ability to critically analyze and utilize existing information for personal and institutional benefit, and the ability and self-confidence to generate and share existing and new knowledge.
The nature of ICTs and the way that they allow us to work with information and knowledge can be both revealing and deceiving. On the one hand, we can think of ICTs as tools that augment our natural capacities for processing and generating information and knowledge, and as such highlight the processes involved so that we can gain a better understanding of those processes. But ICTs can also appear to be automation devices, sort of a layover way of thinking from the industrial age, and this can easily deceive us into thinking that ICTs constitute an end in and of themselves. If we focus on the revealing aspects of ICTs and consider how these relate to our increasingly knowledge-centric society, we stand to gain considerably by expanding the knowledge-base to which we have access and which form the building blocks of the emerging knowledge-based society. But, to achieve this, it will not be enough to provide access to, and the basic skills needed for, the technology, or even the existing information and knowledge made available by the technology, for that matter. These will be needed, but they are not enough. We need to think of this in terms of the greater knowledge-based society and the types of activities that individuals will need to perform to benefit from that society.
I watched a short version of the film, "Uganda: Education Reforms", in one of my courses yesterday. I don't doubt that there is an element of propaganda in the USAID produced film, but I was very impressed with the Ugandan reforms presented. Not surprisingly (and not unjustly), Uganda is something of a "darling child" in development education circles.
One of the things that really impressed me is the provisions for continuing training of teachers. As part of the "Teacher Development Management System" (TDMS), tutors travel throughout Uganda disseminating information about developments in pedagogy and education and encourage teachers to be creative in their approaches. Furthermore, the call for creativity is passed on to the students, with teachers actively encouraged to promote independent and creative thinking among their students.
What this all amounts to, at least as it was presented in the film, is the cultivation of a mentality about education and learning that is intended to reach all levels of society, from the teachers to the parents and to the students. What kept coming to my mind while I watched the film was, with the Ugandan vision and approach regarding education, imagine what they could do if they had good ICTs? And what made this question so persistent in my mind was that they seem to have largely cultivated the type of collaborative knowledge development and dissemination strategies that are so often associated with ICTs without having broad access to ICTs.
One of the things I've thought about is whether ICTs are a necessary prerequisite to the type of knowledge development activity that we associate with ICTs because, when talking about ICT4D, one often hears things like, "What are people going to do with ICTs when they've never sat in front of a computer before?" What the Ugandan example suggests to me, is that there are ways, and in fact concrete examples of, ways to promote strategies that will make ICTs, once they are available, a relatively seamless addition to ways of doing things, rather than a scary new paradigm (which is questionable whether they really ever are, but that's a different topic).
A couple of interesting readings I've been going over that illustrate the "information age" version of dependency theory:
Globalisation, ICTs, and the New Imperialism: Perspectives on Africa in the Global Electronic Village. Yunusa Z. Ya'u.
A continental Association of African Internet Service Provider Associations. Richard Bell.
These two articles discuss the difficulties of implementing ICTs in developing countries, specifically in Africa, due to the policies of international organisations and multinational Telecoms. Bell's article is not exactly new, but relevant nonetheless.
Reading these makes me want to take a better look at the famously doomed MacBride Report. Indeed, some people already are.
I wanted to add a little bit concerning the $100 laptop, or the "green machine", because I've seen a lot of things about this on blogs today after the news about Bill Gates' comments. There seem to be a fair number of people that agree with Gates, and I think that this is more often than not based on a misunderstanding of Negroponte's project. The thing is that this project is not about business and it's not just about laptops. I think that Negroponte and his team have put a lot of thought into this project and come up with something that constitutes a very feasible development aid. Before people criticize the idea of the laptop, I think that they should consider the following:
1. Yes, there are other more pressing issues to be dealt with in many developing countries. But, as is stated in the Dakar Framework for Action,
"Education is a fundamental human right. It is the key to sustainable development and peace and stability within and among countries, and thus an indispensable means for effective participation in the societies and economies of the twenty-first century, which are affected by rapid globalization."
If there is a possibility to provide educational opportunities in developing countries, it should be done. Affordable information technologies make this possible. Furthermore, the globalized society that we are educating people for is based on the flow of information and knowledge. These laptops can make it possible to increase and enhance educational provisions in a manner that is more consistent with the type of world that we now live in.
2. The price point makes it affordable but also detracts from its resale value, both because a feasible resale price will be low, and that at that price it is more likely that communities will be able to supply all their students with them. In areas where money is scarce, desirable technology that is handed over to people might be seen as easy money for the recipients if they can resell it.
3. Using open source software is cheap, but it is also easier to localize and customize since this would not involve the licensing issues of proprietary solutions. Also, using open source software opens up the possibility of engaging the international open source community, raising their awareness of the needs of developing countries and providing a cheap and accessible platform to train IT people in developing countries.
4. The handcrank is a brilliant feature. Face it, what good is a laptop, a computer, a PDA, or even a cellphone, if you don't have access to electricity?
5. It is important to put computers into the hands of individuals. Studies have shown that having the opportunity and means to "tinker" with the technology results in considerably higher levels of confidence in performing complex computer related tasks, like the types associated with producing content for the Internet, i.e. multimedia, webpages, etc.. Telecenters don't provide ample opportunity to "tinker".
6. Cellphones can provide access to some electronic resources, but are not useful for all. They are miserable for producing content and we need for individuals in developing countries to become producers of content (read some of my other entries to see why I think this is so).
Bill Gates recently made fun of MIT's $100 laptop program at a forum with government leaders of the Americas: Bill Gates mocks MIT's $100 laptop project.
Gates has been accused, and indeed found guilty, of some pretty dubious dealings, but this time he has hit an all time low. His snide criticism of the $100 laptop program is not only crass, but entirely wrong. Gates specifically pokes fun at the notion of a "shared computer" and emphasizes the true cost burdens of providing computers; applications, network connectivity, and support.
1. MIT's program is titled "One laptop per child". The computer is not intended to be shared.
2. The laptop will use open source software (n.b. not Microsoft), which is free of cost.
3. The laptops will have built-in mesh networking, allowing users to experience network environments even where Internet is not available, or to share a connection when it is available.
4. The open source software community has established a very effective community based support structure, free of charge (n.b. not requiring prohibitively expensive Microsoft Certification), which still manages to befuddle proprietary companies.
Meanwhile $600-$1000 Origami/Ultra-mobile computers, which no one seems able to figure out what are supposed to accomplish, that will only run on proprietary software (and this from a company that refused to support right-to-left script in its software) are a better idea?
UNESCO is collecting opinions on their action plan for moving towards knowledge societies: WSIS Consultation. This is your opportunity to be heard. Go for it.
I already submitted my comments under Action Line C3: Access to info and knowledge and Action Line C7: E-learning. All pretty much in line with my previous statements on this blog.
BBC NEWS | Business | UN chief hails new French air tax
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.
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.