Salon (via Boing Boing) had an article about Richard Heeks' interesting economic and developmental analysis of so-called "gold farming", titled "Current Analysis and Future Research Agenda on "Gold Farming": Real-World Production in Developing Countries for the Virtual Economies of Online Games". Gold farming is the fairly common (albeit unethical and in some circumstances even illegal) practice of playing online video games for the sole purposes of collecting in-play money and valuables to sell for real-world money. Heeks claims that this has become a very lucrative activity for developing countries especially with several players involved, including individuals all over the world (often sending remittances to developing countries) and even enterprises whose primary business is gold farming.
Heeks sees this as an important issue for many fields including economics and the ICT4D (ICT for development) field. Heeks claims:
"Gold farming presents two things [for ICT4D]. First, a current model for earning money via an Internet-connected PC. Second, an example of a possible future model in which Internet-connected workers in developing countries produce a wide range of virtual goods and services. For both these reasons, the ICT4D field should be taking a keen interest in gold farming."
I certainly agree with Heeks that this is something that the ICT4D field should be aware of, but I do not see this as being something that the ICT4D field should be especially occupied with. First of all, as far as I can tell, gold farming is merely about making money and has little, if anything, to do with the types of impact the ICT4D agenda hopes to achieve in terms of the advancement of the knowledge economy, education and encouraging equal access to, and distribution of, the fruits of globalization. Tying up scarce computers in schools and telecenters in developing countries with dubious activities in online virtual worlds is something I hope that few would condone, no matter what the fiscal returns might be. Heeks does address some negative sides of this development, ex. when he compares it to the exploitation of Chinese immigrant workers in the US in the 19th century (hence the "quaint" title given to some Chinese gold farmers, "playbourers").
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.
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.-Ã…. (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.-Ã…., (ed.) (1992). National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, London: Pinter Publishers.
Lundvall, B.-Ã…., & 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.
The BBC has published the results of a poll on attitudes toward, and experiences of, globalisation that they conducted in cooperation with GlobeScan Inc. and The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA). (See the story on the poll on BBC News here)
The results are quite interesting and show very different attitudes and experiences in different countries. Especially interesting is that people in developed countries tend to be more negative than people in developing countries. Negative attitudes in developed countries tended to be related to the unequal distribution of the fruits of globalisation. However, in several developing countries there was a common belief that globalisation would bring about more equality in their countries.
I have been a proponent of the UN Millennium Declaration's (UNMD) aim of promoting globalisation as a positive force through inclusive dialogue on globalisation. These results make me wonder whether the UNMD and related dialogue on globalisation might be giving rise to false expectations. Not that I think there is anything wrong with this dialogue, rather that this dialogue is not reaching the economic heavyweights behind the spread of globalisation, i.e. primarily the corporate forces. The question then is, how do we take the dialogue to these parties that need to be involved? And I think that this is not just a question of how we reach their ears and get their input (because many of these parties are certainly involved in dialogue at some level), but more importantly, how do we ensure that the dialogue is centered around the values (for example...) that will make globalisation a positive force and that participants in the dialogue recognise these values?
I've just come across a paper written by Marcus Foth, Nancy Odendaal and Greg Hearn, titled "The View from Everywhere: Towards an Epistemology for Urbanites." I found it a fascinating read because it echoes so many of my own thoughts concerning popular definitions of "knowledge". My own thoughts on the topic are, in a very general sense, that the traditional notion of knowledge as objective truths has become increasingly dubious as global interaction increases. In fact, what that increasing interaction does show us is that being exposed to foreign "knowledge cultures" is a powerful means of revealing underlying assumptions, often unfounded, on which we tend to base our "knowledge" (that's why global ICTs and internationalisation of education are such a great idea). Many of my past posts (usually the lengthier ones) include some aspects of my thoughts on this.
In their abstract, Foth, Oldendaal and Hearn say, "We argue for the development of an epistemological model which takes into account and values transitory, informal, soft, implicit, contextual and tacit forms of knowledge, and its sources and utility outside the hard sciences." On the one hand I would say that, at least in philosophical epistemology, this view of knowledge is increasingly accepted. I think that this is quite clear from the abundant literature that the authors were able to draw on for this paper. What's more, I don't think that there are many philosophers today that would have a problem with this (except maybe some of the fine details, but that's just how philosophers are, right?). The big question for me, that this paper does not answer (and perhaps was not meant to answer), is how this notion of knowledge gets transferred into educational practice (education here is meant to refer to any activity that facilitates learning whether that is an anticipated result or not) or any other useful activities?
There is one thing that bothers me about the paper. In their conclusions the authors ask, "How can this ‘other’ knowledge be trusted? How is tacit or informal knowledge justified, or what kind of justification will distinguish it from opinion, convention, religion, tradition or politics? " It seems to me that they sort of missed the point here. I think the relevant question, that follows from the authors' proposed definition of knowledge, does not concern the justification of "this 'other' knowledge", rather, what knowledge is embedded in the 'other' knowledge and how was it formed and what function does it serve? I'm sure some will say that this is merely a loquacious description of "justification". But my reason for putting it this way is that I believe that the authors' proposed definition of knowledge suggests that knowledge is not necessarily justified (in the traditional epistemological sense), rather it is reinforced. Hence the role of context. It would be more difficult to make a case for "contextual justification" than for "contextual reinforcement".
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.
The story about Microsoft's translation of its software into Mapuzugun, a language spoken by about 400,000 indiginous Mapuche Indians in Chile, has been raising a lot of attention on the net. The Mapuche Indians want to take Microsoft to court for using their language without having consulted them to get their permission. The big question being raised concerns ownership of a language, i.e. can Mapuzugun be considered the intellectual property of the Mapuche Indians, and this is what the Mapuche Indians would like the courts to decide.
I suspect that the Microsoft translation project is related to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's plan to increase accessibility to ICTs in several developing countries, Chile being among them, by supplying public libraries with free computers and Internet connections. Of course, for such a project to be successful, they can hardly set up a bunch of computers with interfaces in English or other common languages, that are not commonly spoken by the anticipated beneficiaries of the project. But, and here is the other issue in this and the more serious one in my opinion, that computer software would be translated and localised without consulting the people concerned borders on the outrageous. It's like if Microsoft would suddenly tell francophones that the French word for a computer will henceforth be "le computer". Imagine the ruckus that that would cause!
The problem here is that the IT lingo, which I assume was lacking in the Mapuzugun language, is not being allowed to emerge from the cultural consciousness of the Mapuche, but is rather being imposed on them. This becomes a question of equity, meaning that if the language comes from the outside it is reflecting the knowledge and understanding of a foreign culture, and thereby, limiting the sense of ownership in the concept(s) being promoted, in this case of the Mapuche Indians and ICTs. Hence, ICTs are presented as a concept of outside origin to which the Mapuche Indians have to adapt rather than as a tool which the Mapuche Indians can adapt to their own needs. This simply goes against everything that ICTs are intended to promote in the context of development for a globalised knowledge-based economy.
People over at the UNDP's Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme (UNDP-APDIP) have caught on to the brilliance of Wikis. They've released a bunch of their "e-Primers" under a GFDL license onto Wikibooks. What this means is that they are free to be edited by YOU, me and everyone else.
Somewhere I read that 1 ICT year is roughly equal to 3 real years. So, if an e-Primer was published 3 years ago, that means it's at least 9 years outdated! But, now we can all go and update them to our hearts' content with examples of good/bad practice, new developments, etc., and, of course, I expect us all to do exactly that. Obviously, you'll most likely find me hangin' out around the ICTs in Education primer, although I'm sure I can find some other topics of interest in the vast amount of material available.
It would be great to see some other organisations do this.
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.
Seems like there's a lot of talk about open source software in regards to development these days.
The BBC's Bill Thompson has an interesting story on open source software in India: BBC NEWS | Technology | India lays down 'open' challenge
Among other things, he touches on the isolation of Indian coders. There are Indian special interest groups, coders are doing much more than simply localising existing software and there is a lot of government support, but there is a lack of project that are really focused on solving Indian problems. This seems like it could be a sort of chicken-or-the-egg question similar to the "who gets ICT first, student or the teacher?" I mention in a previous post. Especially when we consider that open source software relies on the voluntary feedback of real users to identify problems. Maybe the issue is that they need more users rather than government support...
This 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 posted on the original study, so I figure I have to post on the follow-up: BBC NEWS | Technology | Wikipedia study 'fatally flawed'.
Encyclopaedia Brittanica has posted a rejection of Nature's evaluation of Brittanica and Wikipedia, calling for a retraction of the original article. Nature has rejected Brittanica's rejection and says that they will not retract.
And I ask, but which one is more of a knowledge development tool? (Hint: I think transparency is necessary for the knowledge development process.) Evaluating something like Wikipedia based solely on content sort of misses the point, in my view.
An interesting interview with Ward Cunningham, creator of the wiki: Father of Wiki Speaks Out on Community and Collaborative Development
"I think of software being a work—very much like a wiki being a work—where people see an area that's weak and they make it stronger," Cunningham said.
... and the more people with more diverse origins reveal more weaknesses and make things even stronger. (Did I mention that I like wikis?)
A couple of interesting readings I've been going over that illustrate the "information age" version of dependency theory:
Globalisation, ICTs, and the New Imperialism: Perspectives on Africa in the Global Electronic Village. Yunusa Z. Ya'u.
A continental Association of African Internet Service Provider Associations. Richard Bell.
These two articles discuss the difficulties of implementing ICTs in developing countries, specifically in Africa, due to the policies of international organisations and multinational Telecoms. Bell's article is not exactly new, but relevant nonetheless.
Reading these makes me want to take a better look at the famously doomed MacBride Report. Indeed, some people already are.
UNESCO is collecting opinions on their action plan for moving towards knowledge societies: WSIS Consultation. This is your opportunity to be heard. Go for it.
I already submitted my comments under Action Line C3: Access to info and knowledge and Action Line C7: E-learning. All pretty much in line with my previous statements on this blog.