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
The focus of the World Bank's "Global Economic Prospects" this year is "Technology diffusion in the developing world". Not surprisingly, this has generated a lot of discussion about the "leapfrogging" concept, i.e. accelerating development through the adoption of cheap new technologies, as evidenced by recent articles in the Economist (and here) and on various blogs. Judging from these commentaries, the new report has cast a shadow of doubt on the whole leapfrogging approach to development. Although mobile phones remain the posterchild of leapfrogging development, they seem to be something of an anomaly. Other information and communication technologies (ICTs), especially computers, have not had as much of an impact (or maybe just not as noticeable an impact). This is largely blamed on the lack of communications and power infrastructure in developing regions which limits the useability of computers. I would suggest that many of these criticisms reflect an unfounded technological determinism and are based on a very limited view of the relationship between ICTs and society in that they overemphasize the "leapfrogging" and technology aspect and ignore the "leapfrogging" and development aspect.
Many efforts to introduce and diffuse ICTs, computers in particular, in developing countries assume that ICTs have become well-defined tools with well-defined roles and "appropriate" interfaces suited to those roles, and therefore, a "tried and true" "westernized" ideal of these technologies are promoted. In fact, there is little evidence to support such assumptions. In the past few decades computer interfaces have changed dramatically and existing metaphors (esp. the desktop metaphor) become increasingly unsuitable as computers have taken on roles that may have been somewhat unexpected by mainstream users ca. 10-15 years ago, ex. social networking, vehicles for personal commentary, media centers, etc. It would seem more reasonable to say that computers have served as a flexible platform that each generation of users has been able to shape to meet its own needs and expectations. What's more, these types of changes, or expansions, of the roles of computers have become increasingly rapid as their use has become more widespread. So, why the tendency to expect new users in developing regions to embrace technology presented in a manner so far removed from the experience of others? I think it may be, at least in part, due to a tendency to focus on anticipated general results of widespread diffusion of computers rather than focusing on the way things are done with computers and what is done with them.
From an educational point of view there are a few notable trends that can be identified where computers have achieved considerable diffusion (this is not to be taken as a claim that computers in education have been a raging success). Over the last four decades, the most notable impact that computers have had in a very general sense is obviously that the flow of information has increased, is more diverse, and has become more rapid. Over the same period, changes in thinking about education have corresponded with the impact that computers have had such that there is now a greater trend toward individual-based learning, constructivism and lifelong learning. This makes perfect sense when we consider the ways that use and manipulation of information flows has developed. For example, increased information flows have challenged existing notions of "truth" and we now generally accept that even seemingly well grounded scientific "truths" may be more relative to social and cultural norms than was previously assumed. This has become one of the primary justifications for individual-based and constructive learning, i.e. that "truth" is, at least in part, subject to individual conceptualizations and understandings of the elements involved. This in turn has underlined the importance of lifelong learning, which has evolved into a concept that not only encourages continuous learning, but also acknowledges that learning is an inherent aspect of human life, i.e. we are always learning and what, where and how we learn affects the way we internalise information that we receive in formal and non-formal interactions (I take this to be the gist of the Delors' report's definition of learning as "lifelong, life-wide and life-deep").
ICTs didn't change education overnight. We can identify trends, as I've done above, and in hindsight it may seem to us that the impact of ICTs was rapid and dramatic. But, I think that this is mostly because they have been very effectively rationalised, i.e. they have subtly changed whole conceptual frameworks, which in turn bounces back to effect ICTs. So, to get back to leapfrogging, do we introduce ICTs to promote novel forms of social interaction that may accelerate development or do we highlight the aspects of social interaction that may accelerate development and introduce ICTs to facilitate these? The ICT for development agenda is commonly referred to as ICT4D, but I'm going to make a distinction here and refer to the former path described above as ICT2D, i.e. ICT to develop - the assumption being that ICTs will spur on development, and the latter path I will refer to as ICT&D, i.e. ICT and development - ICTs can augment other development initiatives.
The question I raise above is not one that I am prepared to answer. But, I think that ICT2D carries a risk of introducing ICTs that are not relevant to the existing social fabric in the community involved because, at any point in time, technologies tend to reflect the societal values from which they emerge, and current ICTs have primarily emerged from western societies (obvious examples that come to mind are initiatives that are based on the "we need Windows" assumption). Therefore, outcomes ranging from total failure to diffuse the technology to cultural homogenization would hardly be surprising. However, ICT&D would launch ICTs in an environment where there may already be a perceived need for the types and levels of communication and information exchange that ICTs can provide, making for a more "organic" integration of the technologies into existing societal structures (examples would include initiatives in countries where they already have well educated computer scientists, like in Estonia and India). ICT&D is no less a potential "leapfrogging" path than ICT2D even though the diffusion of the technology itself may be somewhat delayed because it seeks to accelerate development in the same way as the former. The problem is that ICT2D is undeniably the easier to implement quickly and progress can be easily measured by simply counting cell phones and computers, measuring fiber optic cables, etc. (whatever that's supposed to tell us about levels of development...). I think it is this "easier" path that is usually envisioned in regards to leapfrogging development. In light of recent experiences we might want to take a better look at the other path.
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.
Last summer, Craig R. Barrett, chairman of UN GAID and chairman of the board of Intel Corp., issued a list of "Recommendations from the UN GAID Chairman". A couple of the recommendations are worthy of a slightly raised eyebrow, and perhaps even a "wink wink nudge nudge" or two.
Barrett addresses education in his first recommendation. Conspicuously missing here is any mention of students. The gist of Barrett's first recommendation is "Train teachers to integrate technology into the classroom". This is pretty obvious, but he goes on to repeat the Intel mantra, "Computers aren't magic, teachers are." In light of recent spats between Intel and OLPC project (esp. Intel's teacher focus vs. OLPC's kids focus), one has to wonder whether this is coming from Barrett the UN GAID chairman or Barrett the Intel chairman. However, there is an abundance of research that gives ample reason to question the effectiveness of entrusting classroom teachers with the spread of ICTs. Numerous studies have shown that even after receiving special training many teachers are hesitant to fully integrate ICTs into their classroom activities. They are far less likely to attempt to do something innovative with ICTs, choosing rather to use familiar off the shelf products, the most common being word processors. Meanwhile, ICTs have been shown to be truly transformative in very unpredictable ways when put into the hands of users, even when those users have little previous experience with them. Put simply, there is plenty of evidence to support a claim that computers may be more magical than teachers.
Barrett's other point that raised my attention is his fourth recommendation, "Competitive telecommunications markets are necessary to allow for affordable Internet access." This makes sense up to a certain point. Competition certainly has brought the cost down, but only if there is a market to work with. Telecommunications markets have not seemed eager to seek out new markets where the most costly parts of the infrastructure are missing. East Africa remains the most poorly connected part of the world and it doesn't seem like the telecommunications market is exactly knocking at their doors with an adequate submarine cable in hand. We even have a rather dismal situation here in Iceland. Infrastructure within Iceland is very good (except for several rural areas) but the country is connected internationally by only two submarine cables, only one of which is for commercial use. Internet access outside of Iceland is metered (except for the most expensive services and even then there are limits) and quite expensive (not to mention the all too common outages that occur when something happens to that one cable). This will gradually get better, but still, it's a few years off. If Iceland's progress in this area is any indication of what can be expected for East Africa, there may be quite a wait for the telecommunications market to get around to delivering on the "free market" promise.
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.
The BBC news website has a collection of brief reports about ways that ICT use is being spread and used in poverty stricken areas in South Africa. Everything from mesh networking with tin cans to free open source software.
While you're on BBC's site you may want to check out Bill Thompson's recent article about computer use in exams (or lack thereof). I couldn't agree with him more.
I had an interesting phone call this evening. It was from someone in the US who was preparing a piece for a morning radio show on the impact of Skype in China and was interested in the "leapfrogging" aspect. As I'm sure will always be the case, one comes up with the best responses after the actual interview. That, and I was thawing some chicken at the time and thinking about what I was going to do with it for dinner. Things like that can be a little distracting.
My response was along the lines that I don't see Skype as such being a major leapfrogging development for a few reasons. Firstly, the old criticism against the technocentric view of leapfrogging applies. Adopting Skype, or any other such ICT for that matter, doesn't really constitute leapfrogging in and of itself because it merely entails adopting current technology. That isn't a step beyond anything, as the leapfrogging concept suggests. Secondly, to function acceptably, Skype requires a fairly stable and up-to-date ICT infrastructure. So, Skype functionality is more a result of ICT adoption rather than a major step forward.
The big question then is how would Skype be used once it achieves widespread adoption in China? This is a question that I cannot answer and I would be surprised if anyone could at this point. But, judging from the way it's been used in places where there already is widespread adoption, I wouldn't expect anything too remarkable. As far as I'm concerned, Skype just makes it cheaper and easier to do things that we already do, i.e. communicate. Obviously that does impact the potential level of integration between regions with all the benefits that may have, but so do a lot of other things and any assumption in this regard would be highly speculative.
On top of this is the issue of Internet censorship in China. I don't know how things stand today but I do know that Skype was initially blocked in China. Given Chinese authorities' track record in these matters I would be quite surprised to learn that Skype can currently be freely used in China to facilitate communications with other Skype users or traditional telephones outside of China. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The thing that came to me after the interview, that I should have said about leapfrogging (although I got the impression that the focus was more on China) actually regards Skype itself. Skype has had a significant impact on Estonia, where the program was initially developed although the idea was brought over by a Swede and a Dane, and this may be regarded as far more illustrative of the leapfrogging concept than the diffusion of the application. Skype (and Kazaa which came from the same place) have given Estonia a lot of credibility in a new IT sector that is exceptionally innovative. This example underlines the fact that leapfrogging doesn't necessarily entail a move forward ("leapfrogging" might be a bit of a misnomer). In fact, it's far more effective when it moves to the side, so to speak. Estonia is creating a market that is unique and where it is an undisputed leader. This has contributed considerably to Estonia's being the dynamic EU hotspot that it is at the moment. That's leapfrogging!
Apple finally announced its long awaited "iPhone" today. To tell the truth it's a pretty snazzy gadget. Although many have attempted to accomplish similar technological convergence, Apple, as so often before, seem to have anticipated users' needs and wishes to create something that is new, usable and desirable, and in so doing they may be once again leading a pardigm shift in how we use technology. This last point is what I think is most significant about the iPhone. It reminds us that we have not, nor should we assume to have, come up with the ultimate design for technology and the way we use it. Yet, there's always a persistent group that considers divergence from current computing paradigms, such as Microsoft's Office suite, a valid criticism against new technology. As delivery of the OLPC's (One Laptop Per Child) "$100 laptop" nears, the project has received a lot of criticism on exactly this point, ex. "It doesn't look like anything that's being used in the business or computing world today, therefore it's misleading, and at worst, useless." I have a few responses to such criticisms and Apple's bold new venture proves my point(s) in so many ways:
1. Given that the OLPC laptop is intended for young children, how do these critics know what computer use in computing and business is going to look like when the laptop users enter these fields? I've been using computers for over 25 years and have not witnessed the kind of consistency that these critics seem to expect from computers in the future.
2. The OLPC laptop is to be delivered to young people in many areas where computing is relatively new. Is it unreasonable that these new users, coming from a very different background, will be able to point out to more complacent longtime computer users different and better ways to accomplish tasks? Remember, it was Heddy Lamarr (actress) and George Antheil (musician) who came up with the idea of "frequency hopping", on which modern mobile telephone technology is based. They didn't hook up with experienced engineers until they started going through the patenting process.
3. Why do these critics think that OLPC laptop users will want to use the technology to do what they themselves have done with it for the past half century? Computers are not collections of software, even though that's how most of us use them today. Computers are essentially workbenches for creating tools to do whatever a creative mind can come up with and young people tend to have very creative minds.
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.
I came across an entry on the APC.ORG blog site the other day about the lack of submarine fibre cables to and from the African continent. They point to an interesting map of submarine cables throughout the world and point out the difference between the African continent and other parts of the world. While the difference is quite dramatic, I'm afraid the problem is more complex and serious than is implied.
Obviously, the map being referred to is very stylistic and perhaps not the most informative representation of the data. For instance, one thing that is not at all clear from this map is that Northern Africa, on the Mediterranean Sea, is probably the best connected part of the continent. But, more seriously, the map fails to show that the problem is not merely the lack of connections to and from the continent, it is in how those connections are managed inside and outside the continent. For instance, let's consider Australia. On the map we can see that Australia does not appear to be significantly better connected than Africa (if we accept that the map is not accurately portraying submarine cables linking to Northern Africa). Yet, Australia is number 11 on the Network Readiness Index, far higher than any African country (Tunis is number 31).
For a more complete picture of the connectivity issues in Africa see the two articles linked to in this post.
Many visitors to my blog end up here in their quest for simple definitions of key terms related to the ICT for development agenda. So I've decided to start compiling a glossary of ICT4D terms. I am going to place a link or menu over here on the left to provide easy access to this glossary. Of course, any and all assistance will be much appreciated in the form of comments, suggestions, etc.. Anyone interested in contributing can leave a comment to this post or email me at tryggvi_bt@yahoo.com.
I came across an article today which was included in the UN ICT Task Force newsfeed. It's a commentary written by Nalaka Gunawardene on the SciDev.Net web about the new UN Global Alliance for ICT and Development (UN-GAID). Gunawardene is very critical of this new collaborative effort while he acknowledges the need to "link up the thousands of communications technology initiatives littered across the developing world". Gunawardene goes on to criticize the emphasis on computer-based communication technologies claiming that better established technologies, such as radio, television and mobile telephony, should receive more attention.
First of all, I think Gunawardene is wrong about the purpose of UN-GAID. I have not come across any literature related to the UN-GAID that suggests that the alliance will, or should, "link up [...] initiatives littered across the developing world". The UN-GAID is intended to function as a multi-stakeholder platform, i.e. bringing together the different players involved in development and the different aspects of the rapidly changing global economy. The question of linking the many existing initiatives may be a valid one (even though I can also think of arguments for a broad range of approaches), but it is certainly not one that the UN-GAID is specifically intended to address.
Gunawardene suggests that for many developing regions the jump to computer-based communication technologies is pre-mature. He therefore calls for "a broader strategy to gradually integrate ICTs into our societies". Gunawardene's representation of the issues involved ignores the forces that the ICT4D agenda aims to address. The goal is not to bring developing countries up to par "sooner or later", it is to adapt the development agenda to the increasingly rapid changes that impact the lives of everyone on a global basis. If we are to adopt a "gradual integration" approach, developing countries are likely to fall further and further behind as technological and related developments continue to speed up. We are rapidly doing away with the need for prohibitively expensive infrastructures to facilitate the adoption of computer-based communication technologies. So, why should we wait to implement them?
Lastly, Gunawardene does not seem to realize that there is a fundamental difference between the impact of mass broadcast-based communication technologies, such as radio and television, and computer-based communication technologies. While mass communication technologies can facilitate the dissemination of information, since it is a one-way, few-to-many communication technology, it is easily controlled and the audience is given little choice in what information it receives. Computer-based technologies, on the other hand, are controlled by the individual and are multi-directional, i.e. the individual can access information and can pass on information. That sort of empowerment on an individual basis is not realistic with mass communication technologies.
I'm certainly not suggesting that the UN-GAID is above criticism, but I think Gunawardene's criticisms mostly miss the point, and hence miss their mark.
The inaugural meeting of the newly established Global Alliance for ICT and Development (GAID) starts next week, June 19th. This is certainly an interesting development and I'm anxious to see what comes out of the meeting. I think that the multi-sectoral approach could prove to be very beneficial.
The selection of Intel's Craig Barrett as chairman I think is an excellent choice. Not only is he extremely qualified for the task, but he also seems to be genuinely dedicated to addressing the problems faced by developing countries today in an equitable and meaningful manner.
This is just very, very sad: CNN.com - Official: Africans pay $1,800 for 1GB of data - May 18, 2006.
Just in case you're still missing something regarding the $100 laptop: RED HERRING | Q&A: Nicholas Negroponte
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...
A very insightful article on the BBC website today about how ICTs are being used in rapidly changing India: BBC NEWS | Technology | India aims to be hi-tech heaven
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.
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 wanted to add a little bit concerning the $100 laptop, or the "green machine", because I've seen a lot of things about this on blogs today after the news about Bill Gates' comments. There seem to be a fair number of people that agree with Gates, and I think that this is more often than not based on a misunderstanding of Negroponte's project. The thing is that this project is not about business and it's not just about laptops. I think that Negroponte and his team have put a lot of thought into this project and come up with something that constitutes a very feasible development aid. Before people criticize the idea of the laptop, I think that they should consider the following:
1. Yes, there are other more pressing issues to be dealt with in many developing countries. But, as is stated in the Dakar Framework for Action,
"Education is a fundamental human right. It is the key to sustainable development and peace and stability within and among countries, and thus an indispensable means for effective participation in the societies and economies of the twenty-first century, which are affected by rapid globalization."
If there is a possibility to provide educational opportunities in developing countries, it should be done. Affordable information technologies make this possible. Furthermore, the globalized society that we are educating people for is based on the flow of information and knowledge. These laptops can make it possible to increase and enhance educational provisions in a manner that is more consistent with the type of world that we now live in.
2. The price point makes it affordable but also detracts from its resale value, both because a feasible resale price will be low, and that at that price it is more likely that communities will be able to supply all their students with them. In areas where money is scarce, desirable technology that is handed over to people might be seen as easy money for the recipients if they can resell it.
3. Using open source software is cheap, but it is also easier to localize and customize since this would not involve the licensing issues of proprietary solutions. Also, using open source software opens up the possibility of engaging the international open source community, raising their awareness of the needs of developing countries and providing a cheap and accessible platform to train IT people in developing countries.
4. The handcrank is a brilliant feature. Face it, what good is a laptop, a computer, a PDA, or even a cellphone, if you don't have access to electricity?
5. It is important to put computers into the hands of individuals. Studies have shown that having the opportunity and means to "tinker" with the technology results in considerably higher levels of confidence in performing complex computer related tasks, like the types associated with producing content for the Internet, i.e. multimedia, webpages, etc.. Telecenters don't provide ample opportunity to "tinker".
6. Cellphones can provide access to some electronic resources, but are not useful for all. They are miserable for producing content and we need for individuals in developing countries to become producers of content (read some of my other entries to see why I think this is so).
Bill Gates recently made fun of MIT's $100 laptop program at a forum with government leaders of the Americas: Bill Gates mocks MIT's $100 laptop project.
Gates has been accused, and indeed found guilty, of some pretty dubious dealings, but this time he has hit an all time low. His snide criticism of the $100 laptop program is not only crass, but entirely wrong. Gates specifically pokes fun at the notion of a "shared computer" and emphasizes the true cost burdens of providing computers; applications, network connectivity, and support.
1. MIT's program is titled "One laptop per child". The computer is not intended to be shared.
2. The laptop will use open source software (n.b. not Microsoft), which is free of cost.
3. The laptops will have built-in mesh networking, allowing users to experience network environments even where Internet is not available, or to share a connection when it is available.
4. The open source software community has established a very effective community based support structure, free of charge (n.b. not requiring prohibitively expensive Microsoft Certification), which still manages to befuddle proprietary companies.
Meanwhile $600-$1000 Origami/Ultra-mobile computers, which no one seems able to figure out what are supposed to accomplish, that will only run on proprietary software (and this from a company that refused to support right-to-left script in its software) are a better idea?
Outrageous, if you ask me: CNN.com - Tolls could dot the Internet highway - Feb 27, 2006
These are the types of things I like. An "open source-like" book titled Wireless Networking in the Developing World. The book is authored by known and respected professionals. It is released under a ShareAlike Creative Commons license. The book is available for free electronically or a printed copy can be ordered. It is supported by the website, where the authors have set up a wiki for commenting on the book, making corrections, translating and providing concrete examples of projects. Impressive stuff. Check it out.
Sometimes I feel that I need to refocus and put the things I've posted about into context. This blog is supposed to be about leapfrogging, but it might not always be clear where I'm going with these ponderings of mine. So here's a brief opinion piece to tie some things together. The burning question of the day - given what I've posted here, what is my view of leapfrogging development?
For me, this boils down to at least two questions:
- What are the goals of leapfrogging development?
- What is the role of ICTs in leapfrogging development, given those goals?
My answer to the first question is that the goal of leapfrogging development is the expansion of the information society to be representative of the multitude of ways of knowing throughout the world. This is not a technological development and it is not something that concerns only those who find themselves on the wrong side of the "digital divide". To me, the notion of the information society is global, democratic and inclusive. Being a part of the information society is not only about having access to information, more important is being able to contribute to the information society. The focus for leapfrogging development is then on finding ways to increase the input of marginalised societies and cultures into the global information flow. As long as that input is missing, the information society is deficient. Hence, leapfrogging is intended to "fix" the information society by increasing the diversity of resources available.
The reason that ICTs are important for leapfrogging development has nothing to do with the technological sophisticiation expected of members of the information society. Rather, it just so happens that they are, at the moment, the best means we have for sharing information. If we were to discover tomorrow that we are all able to communicate globally through "extra-sensory perception", a lot of that technology would be immediately rendered obsolete. The technology is not the necessary part of the equation. The necessary part of the equation is being able to translate knowledge into information in a way that it becomes meaningful for others and to have the means for effectively using and communicating that information.
Leapfrogging is to me not a matter of one party helping another. It is a collaborative activity that is intended to benefit everyone involved. What leapfrogging can provide for developing countries is acknowledgement of the relative cultural knowledge base in a global society - empowerment in a world driven by knowledge and information. For developed countries, recognition that there is no supremacy in knowledge - knowledge, wherever it originates, constitutes a valuable contribution to be evaluated on a par with any other knowledge. You never know where the "next big thing" is going to come from. Now, how do we effectively use ICTs to promote and support the activities necessary to form an equitable information society? And, how will we know if it is being achieved?
This is certainly not all I have to say on the matter, but let it suffice for the time being. And now for a couple of relevant links:
India is such an excellent example of what I'm talking about - India Empowered to me is Knowledge taking roots in the village
I think Wikipedia can be leveraged as an important tool in leapfrogging development - Blogs and Wikis: Ushering in an Era of Change