The BBC News site ran an article yesterday about the spread of the mobile web. Nothing surprising about that, it is the big buzz these days. I guess what is noteworthy now is that the "big" corporations (in this case Intel) are finally starting to take this seriously. The shift to mobile web is very interesting because it can both be seen as a reaction to the changing role of the web in people's daily lives while it also would seem to herald a new direction for the web. The overall result is that the amount of information that goes on the web and the interaction between people is exponentially greater than before. This changes a lot for the web as a "knowledge repository" since the nature of the communication facilitated by the web changes significantly. I think all this has some pretty serious implications for education and development that need to be taken into consideration sooner than later.
A large part of what is driving the spread of the mobile web is the increase in social web services, ex. blogs, twitter.com, digg.com, etc. In the early years the web was something that you sat down with and worked on, whether you were looking for information, making a web page or just cruising. Now, the web is a place where people share their daily experiences, not with summaries of a few days or so or pulling together a number of experiences into a coherent narrative, but with instantly communicated little tidbits. These are posted as they happen so it has become important for people to be able to access the web wherever and whenever people feel the need to communicate something.
This has some obvious consequences for the web as a knowledge repository because much of what is posted is presented in a limited context and/or is very subjective. Before these services became available, effective searches for specific topics were very likely to yield entire websites full of relevant information and references to supporting information. The type of communication that we see increasing on the web today with mobile services yield a very different set of resources - often simple "this is what I saw..." or "something I picked up somewhere" communication with little if any reference to supporting information to back up any conclusions drawn or suggested. With the spread of the mobile web this is very likely to increase. Things start to look a little more like a rumor mill than a knowledge repository.
I'm not suggesting that real valuable objective information is going to disappear off the web. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to suspect that it may become somewhat separated from the information that web users will increasingly interact with on a regular basis. There are probably several ways to address this. I think the semantic web could make a big difference if it makes it possible to evaluate and tag information contextually. But, most important is educating users about the impact that their actions are likely to have when they interact using information through a public medium like the web. I think one of the most important elements in this is that web users be aware that information always travels in a chain, i.e. source and context are as important, if not more, than the information being conveyed. To illustrate:
I think that, in general, we consider our assumptions to be strengthened if we can point out sources to back them up, i.e. "I know that ... because of ..." This needs to be turned on its head such that our assumptions are first shown to be directly derived from sources, i.e. "[Source] says that ... therefore ..." This is a very simple and almost too obvious distinction, but makes all the difference in how we communicate information. Consider this, if in both of these cases you neglect the latter part of the equation, the first (I know that ...) really says nothing other than conveying a personal opinion that we may have no reason to believe while the second ([Source] says that ...) conveys a truthful and useful statement.
The spread of the mobile web is a good thing. But, it does have the potential to considerably change the nature of the web-user experience and there there is a mix of potential good and potential bad. Attitudes toward the mobile web seem to be very positive and very little attention has been given to potential downsides. There's more of a "It's coming, it's coming!!!" anticipatory excitement but now is the time to start thinking very seriously about what this really means.
OLPC is making a big mistake by considering including Windows on its laptops. In this BBC News article, Negroponte is quoted as saying,
"We are in the learning business and what the operating system is underneath is less germane"
Hogwash! The openness of the underlying system is an extremely important factor given what we have been told about the aims of the laptop project. The whole project was supposed to be firmly based on Papert's constructionist theory. Running a closed proprietary system (and the inevitable software that goes with it) entirely defeats this purpose. If Windows is an included OS on the OLPC laptop the nature of the project completely changes.
The problems that OLPC are facing are not because they don't have Windows. They are due to the fact that they have utterly failed to get potential buyers to buy into the theoretical underpinnings of the project and the goals that they suggest (hardly surprising - I don't think they've really tried). People that ask for an OLPC laptop with Windows are asking for something entirely different than what OLPC initially set out to produce. If OLPC goes through with the Windows-ization of their laptops, it's just not the same project as they set out with.
Then there is the matter of cost. Microsoft may be willing to donate Windows to OLPC so that OLPC's selling price isn't effected but only because they hope to recover it elsewhere. That's just how business in the proprietary software world works. The cost of computing in general (e.g. upgrades and future choices resulting from computing=Windows indoctrination) will be higher in the long term.
Finally, a couple of links to interesting articles on the BBC web by a reporter that had his child try out an OLPC laptop running open source software and an Intel Classmates laptop running Windows. I think this speaks for itself.
OLPC laptop with open source software
Windows based Intel Classmate
I have received several requests to post references referred to in my so-called "Millennium Declaration Analysis Series" which I link to in the left margin of the main page of this blog. These lengthy articles are drafts that I produced for my MA thesis in Comparative Education. In most cases I did not include full references nor did I even include citations everywhere that they should be. These should not be taken as complete scholarly works but more as a snapshot of my thinking as I worked my way through my research and thesis process. Nevertheless, these are the most popular content on this blog. Therefore, I have decided to post here the complete list of references from my completed thesis. This should include almost all, if not all, references referred to in the draft chapters posted on this blog.
References
Accenture, Markle Foundation, & UNDP (2001). Creating a Development Dynamic: Final Report of the Digital Opportunity Initiative. Retrieved March 10, 2007, from http://www.opt-init.org/framework/
Alhassan, A. (2004). Development communication policy and economic fundamentalism in Ghana. University of Tampere, Tampere.
Amidon, D. M. (2003). The Innovation Superhighway. Butterworth Heinemann, US.
Argyris, M. and Schön, D. (1974). Theory in Practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Atkinson, P., Coffey, A. (1997). Analysing Documentary Realities. In: Silverman, D. (Ed.). Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice. London. Sage Publications.
Bartelson, J. (2000). Three concepts of globalization. International Sociology, 15(2), 180-196.
Bower, B. (2005, December 10). The Piraha challenge: an Amazonian tribe takes grammar to a strange place. Science, 168(24), 372-376.
Demetrion, G. (2000). Practitioner-Based Inquiry: Theoretical Probings. Adult Basic Education, 10(3), 119-146.
Dewey, J. (1954) "My Pedagogic Creed". Three Thousand Years of Educational Wisdom: Selections from Great Documents. Ed. Robert Ulich. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 629-638, pg. 631
Doolittle, P., & Hicks, D. (2003). Constructivism as a theoretical foundation for the use of technology in Social Studies. Theory and Research in Social Education, 31(1), 72-104.
Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. New York: Macmillan.
EOS Gallup Europe (2003). Flash Barometer 151b: “Globalisation”. Taylor Nelson Sofres / EOS Gallup Europe.
Finnemore, M. and Sikkink, K. (2001). Taking stock: The constructivist research program in international relations and comparative politics”. Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 391-416.
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Glasersfeld, E. v. (1996). Radical constructivism: A way of learning. Phoenix: University of Arizona Press.
Glasersfeld, Ernst von (1986). Steps in the Construction of "Others" and "Reality": A Study in Self-Regulation. In: R.Trappl (ed.) Power, Autonomy, Utopia, pp. 107-116. London and New York: Plenum.
Godin, B. (2006). The knowledge-based economy: Conceptual framework or buzzword? Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 17–30.
Hakura, D. S., & Nsouli, S. M. (2003). The millennium development goals, the emerging framework for capacity building, and the role of the IMF. Washington, D.C., International Monetary Fund.
Hannafin, M. J., & Hill, J. R. (2002). Epistemology and the design of learning environments. In R. A. D. Reiser, J. V. (Ed.), Instructional design and technology. Upper Saddle River: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Harris, R. G. (2001). The knowledge-based economy: Intellectual origins and new economic perspectives. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(1), 21-40.
infoDev (undated). Program Framework Agreement. Retrieved October 8, 2006, from www.infodev.org/en/Document.165.aspx
infoDev (2003). infoDev Core Grant Program. Retrieved October 8, 2006, from http://web.archive.org/web/20040216030504/www.infodev.org/projects/apply.htm
infoDev (2005a). infoDev: Work Program 2004-2005. Retrieved June 5, 2005 from infoDev web site: http://infodev.org/section/programs.
infoDev (2005b). infoDev: About Us. Retrieved June 5, 2005 from infoDev web site: http://infodev.org/section/aboutus.
infoDev (2005c). Harnessing ICTs to Fight Poverty and Promote Development: An infoDev research strategy and work plan, 2005-2007. Washington, D.C., The World Bank.
Johnson, B. and Lundvall, B.-Å. (2003), Promoting innovation systems as a response to the globalizing learning economy, in Cassiolato, J.E, Lastres, H.M.M. & Maciel, M.L. Systems of Innovation and Development. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK
Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 693-719). New York: Macmillan.
Kanwen, M. (2001). East-west medical exchanges and their mutual influence. In R. Hayhoe & J. Pan (Eds.), Knowledge across cultures: A contribution to dialogue among civilizations (pp. 177-197). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre - University of Hong Kong.
Lundvall, B.-Å., (ed.) (1992). National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, London: Pinter Publishers.
Lundvall, B.-Å., & Johnson, B. (1994), 'The learning economy', Journal of Industry Studies, 1(2), 23-42.
McElroy, M. W. (2003). The New Knowledge Management: Complexity, learning, and sustainable innovation. Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington, MA.
McNamara, K. S. (2003). Information and Communication Technologies, Poverty and Development: Learning from experience. Washington, D.C., The World Bank.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass.
OECD (1996). The Knowledge-Based- Economy. Paris. OECD.
Pyati, A. (2005). Whose vision of an information society? First Monday, 10(5). Retrieved October 10, 2006, from http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue10_5/pyati/index.html
Robertson, R., & Khondker, H. H. (1998). Discourses of globalization. International Sociology, 13(1), 25-40.
Ruggie, J. G. (1998). What makes the world hang together? Neo-utilitarianism and the social constructivist challenge. International Organization, 52(4), 855-885.
Scholte, J. A. (1997). Global capitalism and the state. International Affairs, 73(3), 427-452.
Scholte, J. A. (2000) Globalization: A critical introduction. London. Palgrave.
Singh, J. P. (1999). Leapfrogging development: The political economy of telecommunications restructuring. Albany: SUNY Press.
Smith, M. K. (2002). Definitions of globalization.
Sterling-Folker, J. (2000). "Competing paradigms or birds of a feather? Constructivism and neoliberal institutionalism compared”, International Studies Quarterly, 44(1), 97–119.
Stromquist, N. P., & Monkman, K. (2000). Defining globalization and assessing its implications on knowledge and education. In N. P. Stromquist & K. Monkman (Eds.), Globalization and education (pp. 3-25). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Thurow, L.C. (2000), "Globalization: the product of a knowledge-based economy", Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 570, 19-31.
To, K. (2006, December). Constructivist approaches to assessing progress on the UN Decade of Education for sustainable development. In Learning Together for Tomorrow: Education for Sustainable Development. The 10th APEID International Conference, Bangkok, Thailand.
UN (2000a). United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution A/RES/55/2.
UN (2000b). Development and international cooperation in the twenty-first century: the role of information technology in the context of a knowledge-based global economy: Report of the Secretary-General, New York.
UN (2004). Challenges and Partnerships: Opening up ICT to the world. Secretariat of the UN ICT Task Force, New York
UN (2005). Un millenium project - about the goals: UN Secretary-General.
UNESCO. (1996). Learning: The treasure within, report to unesco of the international commission on education for the twenty-first century. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2000). Dakar framework for action: UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2003). Education for all: Have we failed? - a summary of the ideas and contributions arising from the forty-sixth session of unesco's international conference on education. Geneva: UNESCO, International Bureau of Education.
Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391-425 .
World Bank Group (2007). Comprehensive Development Framework. Retrieved March 10, 2007, from http://go.worldbank.org/O3CN35INY0
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications.
Last summer, Craig R. Barrett, chairman of UN GAID and chairman of the board of Intel Corp., issued a list of "Recommendations from the UN GAID Chairman". A couple of the recommendations are worthy of a slightly raised eyebrow, and perhaps even a "wink wink nudge nudge" or two.
Barrett addresses education in his first recommendation. Conspicuously missing here is any mention of students. The gist of Barret's first recommendation is "Train teachers to integrate technology into the classroom". This is pretty obvious, but he goes on to say, "Computers aren't magic, teachers are." In light of recent spats between Intel and OLPC project (esp. Intel's teacher focus vs. OLPC's kids focus), one has to wonder whether this is Barrett the UN GAID chairman or Barrett the Intel chairman speaking here. The thing is that there is an abundance of research that gives us reason to question the effectiveness of entrusting classroom teachers with the spread of ICTs. Numerous studies have shown that even after receiving special training many teachers are hesitant to fully integrate ICTs into their classroom activities. They are far less likely to attempt to do something innovative with ICTs, choosing rather to use familiar off the shelf products, the most common being word processors. Meanwhile, ICTs have been shown to be truly transformative in very unpredictable ways when put into the hands of users, even when those users have little previous experience with them. Put simply, there is plenty of evidence to support a claim that computers may be more magical than teachers.
Barrett's other point that raised my attention is his fourth recommendation, "Competitive telecommunications markets are necessary to allow for affordable Internet access." Again, this makes sense up to a certain point. Competition certainly has brought the cost down, but only if there is a market to work with. Telecommunications markets have not seemed eager to seek out new markets where the most costly parts of the infrastructure are missing. East Africa remains the most poorly connected part of the world and it doesn't seem like the telecommunications market is exactly knocking at their doors with an adequate submarine cable in hand. We even have a rather dismal situation here in Iceland. Infrastructure within Iceland is very good (except for several rural areas) but the country is connected internationally by only two submarine cables, only one of which is for commercial use. Internet access outside of Iceland is metered (except for the most expensive services and even then there are limits) and quite expensive (not to mention the all too common outages that occur when something happens to that one cable). This will gradually get better, but still, it's a few years off. If Iceland's progress in this area is any indication of what can be expected for East Africa, they'll be waiting for quite some time for the telecommunications market to get around to building up decent infrastructure there.
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.
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.
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 folks at the MIT Media Lab stay true to their constructionist/constructivist roots with SCRATCH, a nifty application to introduce the rudimentary concepts of programming and have fun while doing it! An interesting approach. It'll be exciting to see what happens.
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.
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 European Commission (DG Enterprise and Industry, I suppose) has made available a comprehensive report on the significance of free/libre and open source (FLOSS) applications for economic and innovation development. The report is titled "Economic impact of open source software on innovation and the competitiveness of the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) sector in the EU" and the principle author is Rishab Aiyer Ghosh, founder of the online journal, FirstMonday, and a prolific researcher on FLOSS.
The report is HUGE, nearly 300 pages, and, as I mentioned, quite comprehensive. I actually wonder whether it would have made sense to divvy it up but a case can also be made for presenting it in one piece.
What's most interesting to me is Ghosh's focus on FLOSS communities as learning communities and their significance for development. He's done a lot of work in this area in the past. See especially pg. 171, in the conclusions to chapter 8.5, Modeling the economic impact of FLOSS on innovation and growth. There the authors say (take a deep breath, looong sentence),
"Our results are suggestive of the overriding importance of human capital formation in this set-up, and especially the way in which FLOSS can directly and positively influence the speed at which contributors to FLOSS communities can pick-up new knowledge and put that to good learning use, for themselves but also for the more down to earth users of FLOSS software, certainly if the latter would be geared at the design of free access ICT-based learning environments."
Same thing I was trying to get across here, where I do indeed refer to Ghosh's past work. Not as sophisticated as in this new report, but we're thinking along the same lines.
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.
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)
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...
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.
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..
Just in case you're still missing something regarding the $100 laptop: RED HERRING | Q&A: Nicholas Negroponte
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.
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).