foci. Many of them have recognised and incorporated multi-causality and the contextual complexity of ICT access and use through telecentres, in their analysis.
logic models to explain how something works: “...a tool that describes the theory of change underlying an intervention, product or policy. It characterises a project through a system of elements that include components and connections, with context being an important qualification” (Frechtling, 2007:1).
Some problems and interventions are simpler than others, as illustrated by the
examples of baking a cake (simple), sending a rocket to the moon (complicated) and raising a child (complex) (Glouberman and Zimmerman, 2002:2). To solve simple problems, a
standard procedure is followed resulting in uniform outcomes, while for complicated problems, more than one procedure or method is required as well as a variety of expertise, to create an outcome that can be predicted to a high degree of certainty and containing certain critical elements. A complex problem can use procedures and expertise, but because the problem is unique, “...uncertainty of outcome remains...” (ibid).
Simple linear models or causal diagrams cannot be used to describe complex situations or interventions, as these often have many, sometimes conflicting goals and many
stakeholders often with different priorities in an unpredictable environment. The challenge is to provide a model that links diverse and inter-related inputs, the context, and the agency of various stakeholders. Aspects that define problems or interventions as complicated include the involvement of many groups or organisations, and many sites of
implementation. Simultaneous causal chains linking inputs and outcomes, also a feature of complicated models, can either be multiple (meaning both or all need to happen) or
alternative (meaning that any one of the alternative strands can link inputs to outcomes) (Rogers, 2008:35-36). Complex interventions can be explained by logic models that have additional features such as recursive causality where there is more than ‘one pass’ through the intervention i.e. where the causal chain contains feedback or reinforcing loops (Rogers, 2008). Numerous passes through at least parts of the model could represent a process where a build up to a critical mass is required, before the causal path leads outcomes. This is referred to as a tipping point, where a small additional effort can have a disproportionately large effect, on the desired outcome (Rogers, 2008:38). Multiple, alternative, simultaneous and recursive causal loops are also linked to another defining feature of complex
interventions, namely emergence: when “...specific outcomes, and the means to achieve them, emerge during implementation of an intervention” because the “...path to success is
so variable and it cannot be articulated in advance” (Rogers, 2008:31&39). This would be true of broadly defined interventions with multiple stakeholders, multiple goals and varying environments that target change simultaneously at many levels.
Kubisch and colleagues (1995:1) describe comprehensive community initiatives as a varied range of initiatives that have a common goal of “promoting positive change in individual, family and community circumstances in disadvantaged neighbourhoods by improving physical, economic and community circumstances”.31 In reference to
comprehensive community initiatives as examples of emergent interventions, Rogers (2008) argues that a variety of models can be developed to explain the inherent logic in an
intervention, which can change as the intervention - and the understanding thereof - changes.
Chambers discusses emergence and complexity with regard to a people-focussed approach to development, noting that “[m]essy partnerships...and unpredictable outcomes are commonplace” (2008:174). This is expected because development targets aim to improve QoL which, it is argued, is achieved in part through agency and empowerment (all of which are complex concepts). Similarly, Prado (2010:2) refers to unexpected outcomes from ICT use. The variety of linkages and loops that can be accommodated in logic models therefore make them applicable to explore ICT access and use, given the complexity of the internet and variety of ICT platforms; the range of socio-economic factors shown to
influence access and use; the ever expanding range of applications and associated uses; the political, economic and geographical factors affecting supply; and so on.
There is general agreement with Warschauer (2008:143) that “… a broader view of access is required if we are to understand what enables people to deploy ICT in personally or socially meaningful ways”. Addressing the lack of ICT4D theory, logic models reflect this broader view, including various elements such as resources and skills needed for access and use; the context of access and use; and potential outcomes, within a model that frames the process for access and use. However, while ICT4D logic models do capture some of the
31 Kubisch and colleagues (1995:3) list six features of comprehensive community initiatives that make them difficult to evaluate, namely “horizontal complexity, vertical complexity, the importance of context, the flexible and evolving nature of interventions, the breadth of the range of outcomes being pursued, and the absence of appropriate control groups for comparison purposes”.
complexity, they are not (and cannot be) all encompassing (Barrantes, 2007; Urquhart et al., 2008). In the discussion below, I have included various ICT4D models because they each illustrate a particular contribution to current ICT4D theory. The best summary of an ICT4D model is the visual representation of the model itself, as a brief description of each would not give justice to the concepts behind the model. I do not discuss all elements of the models, even though other elements may also be relevant, but I do include the visual
representation of the entire model, as it provides a holistic sense of each author’s concept of ICT4D.
3.3.2 Changing Focus and Recognising Complexity
ICT4D has a "profoundly moral agenda" that aims to empower people and communities by answering the difficult questions of not only "what should be done" in the practice of development but also "how we should do it" (Unwin, 2009a 33). (Hamel, 2010:6)
Reflecting on problems with the initial technological focus, a number of authors have suggested other foci for ICT4D, such as human development (Gigler, 2004) or information (Britz, 2004; Vengerfeldt, 2003); or have presented theoretical perspectives that are more holistic, outlining a range of skills and resources that are needed for effective use (van Dijk, 2006; Warschauer, 2008). Moolman and colleagues (2007) and Buskens and Webb (2009) emphasise empowerment and agency with respect to the persistent gender divide, which resonates with Hamel’s reference to ICT4D’s moral agenda (see above quote). In response to the need for ICT4D theory Barrantes (2007); Gigler (2004); Heeks (2002); Kleine (2010b);
Sey and Fellows (2011); Urquhart and colleagues (2008); and others use logic or causal models to illustrate research findings or convey theoretical contributions in an effort to advance the debate on the best use of ICT for development (although not all of them convey complexity).
Sey and Fellows (2011:190) present a simple linear ICT4D model (Figure 3-1) informed by the outcomes approach, in order to “...represent and reconcile different interpretations of public access ICT impacts” found in the literature. The model does not attempt to capture the complexity of interaction between ICT use at public access venues and the surrounding context or the characteristics and resources of the users. The approach aims rather to identify the “...contribution of public access ICTs to development goals, whereas causal links
Figure 3-1: Sey and Fellows’ ICT4D model
Source: Sey and Fellows (2011:190)
are relatively intangible...” (ibid:191) and impacts would only be partially attributable to public access ICT use. In Figure 3-1, intermediate outcomes refer to ICT use at public access venues, leading to end outcomes (such as securing a job), and then to impacts (referring to community-wide development impacts like lower unemployment) as the consequence of end outcomes.
I do not find this model to be of much practical use, because it does not show if, how, where, why or which aspects of the local context influence development outcomes. They have side-stepped the complex issue of causality, stating that “... causal links are relatively intangible (or for the moment, valid means of measuring them have not emerged)” (ibid:191).
However, a useful aspect of the model is that it illustrates different types of outcomes, outputs and impacts. Also useful is the recognition that “[t]he line between impacts and end- outcomes is … a blurry one, and decisions about whether to classify a result as one or the other often have to be based on contextual issues...”
(ibid:191). They propose that
longevity of the achievement could help to distinguish impacts from intermediate and end outcomes, where “[i]deally impacts persist over time…” (ibid:191).
3.3.3 Knowledge and Information
[P]overty is complex multi faceted issue … [s]ome poverty is caused by lack of access to information and knowledge and other resources such as networks of contacts. (Urquhart et al., 2008:209)
Table 3-4: Britz’s elements of information poverty 1 Relevance of accessible information
2 Level of information infrastructure 3 Literacy levels
4 Attitudes towards information and its value 5 Varying material means to access information 6 Global occurrence of information poverty, while
being context specific in nature
7 Influence across social, cultural and economic spheres of society
Source: Summarised from Britz (2004:194)
Writing with a specific focus on ICTs and poverty reduction, Urquhart and colleagues (2008) take a human agency approach to ICT4D theory. From the quote above, their emphasis is on the contribution of ICT use to resources, specifically information, skills and social capital, which are needed for poverty reduction. This reflects Ng’ambi and Brown’s (2004:38) analysis who contend that “the term education, communication, and socialization are one and the same thing...” because “...education involves communication, and therefore socialisation...” with the latter “...having the potential to liberate thought and facilitate communication of new ideas” (ibid:38).
Urquhart and colleagues (2008:204) discuss information with respect to theories of knowledge creation, which alongside theories of human and social capital, provide
important conceptual insights for “...translating knowledge into action for poverty alleviation as they draw on effective use of knowledge for the formation of tangible and intangible social and human capital”. This group of authors consider knowledge and action to be central to poverty alleviation. Britz (2004) focuses on information and skills as an education resource. He defines information poverty as “... that situation in which individuals and communities, within a given context, do not have the requisite skills, abilities or material means to obtain efficient access to information, interpret it and apply it appropriately”
(Britz, 2004:192). The lack of access to ICTs is regarded by some as one of the main causes of information poverty, which in turn is a critical aspect of poverty or ill-being. Those without access find it increasingly difficult to obtain information needed for decisions regarding their material well-being (ibid:193). Britz (2004) identifies seven key elements of information poverty, summarised in Table 3-4.
Once beyond the technical DD, a focus on information should be broad, questioning access to and control of information (Vengerfeldt, 2003); related to local development
Figure 3-2: van Dijk’s ICT4D model
Source: van Dijk (2006:224)
objectives (Heeks, 2002:10); and cognisant of the need for “...knowledge and resources to translate access to effective use” (Moolman et al. 2007:6). Thus, issues surrounding the use of information (like power relations and analytics skills) impact on people’s ability to
effectively use information and generate knowledge for action.
3.3.4 Skills and Resources
People must have the capacity to use their access to ICTs (Moolman et al., 2007:6). To identify the range of skills needed, it is critical to recognise that ICT access is “...a process with many social, mental and technological causes and not a single event of obtaining a particular technology” (van Dijk, 2006:224 – my emphasis). van Dijk’s model (Figure 3-2) identifies different types of skills needed within a process that has different stages of access.
Within skills access, van Dijk (2006:228) names these digital skills as:
a] instrumental - “the capacities to work with hardware and software”;
b] informational - “the skills to search, select and process information in computer and network sources”; and
c] strategic - “the capacities to use computer and network sources as the means for particular goals and for the general goal of improving one’s position in society”.
Besides user skills, the skills to install, service and maintain ICT hardware and software are important
(Urquhart et al.,
2008:205), as indicated by the sixth aspect affecting PAC venue performance
(presented in Table 3-3).
Both Heeks (2002) and Warschauer (2008) also consider different types of skills
needed, locating these skills within sets of resources needed for effective ICT use. Figure 3-3 outlines four categories of resources needed, located in Heeks’ Information Chain that
shows a progression towards action (Heeks, 2002:7). Skills to use ICTs and to access data (van Dijk’s instrumental skills, Figure 3-2) are included under Heeks’ economic resources (Figure 3-3), while skills to translate information to knowledge and to use knowledge for action (van Dijk’s information and strategic skills, Figure 3-2) are included under Heeks’
social and action resources (Figure 3-3).
Warschauer (2008:143-144) considers four areas of resources as assisting with analysis of ICT access, namely:
a] the variety of devices (physical resources);
b] web content (digital resources);
c] traditional literacy and four types of digital literacy (human resources); and d] social relations, structures and capital (social resources).
While various authors use different terms for skills or resources, the concepts drawn on are not in conflict. Warschauer (2008), Heeks (2002) and van Djik (2006) identify skills and resources needed that are not limited to the ability to operate an ICT device (such as sending an email or typing numbers on a keypad). The skills and resources needed are those that allow for meaningful ICT use in relation to the user’s wants and needs. This includes the ability to evaluate the validity of information from alternate websites or the language style and content of a job application sent by email. The value of Heeks’ four categories is that it
Figure 3-3: Heeks’ ICT4D model
Source: Heeks (2002:7-8)
illustrates what is needed in the different stages of the process of using ICTs, such as the confidence to access and use information from the internet and being able to use new information or social networks to make a decision and to act (see Figure 3-3).
3.3.5 Human Diversity and the Local Context
[T]he issue of appropriateness of ICTs in a given context coupled to the conditions of their access must always figure in the analysis of their value and potential contribution to development. (Hamel, 2010:35)
Recognising that a range of resources and skills are needed for effective ICT use was important in order to move beyond the DD of the 2000s and the view that the mere presence of an ICT device would result in use and benefit. Similarly, recognition of the influence that context has on effective use, is also important. An individual’s resources and skills are affected by their socio-economic background and access to economic, educational and cultural capital (Vengerfeldt, 2003:5), for example the quality of schools available locally or prevailing social norm. Evidence from research indicates that gender, age, race, ethnicity, income, education, culture, and psychological resources (like motivation) all impact on people’s ability to access and use ICTs. Patterns in ICT access and use reflect society,
including the diversity of people, as well as inequality and marginalisation (Heeks, 2002; van Dijk, 2006). Realising the limitations of the narrow technological DD approach, reminded academics, practitioners and funders that the one-size-fits-all approach or the dump-and- run approach usually fails (van Dijk, 2006; van Reijswoud, 2009).
Among others, Pinkett (2000) asserts the contextual impact on ICT access and use, emphasizing that activities to engage people on ICT use must resonate with local culture and social settings. Warschauer (2008:144) refers to the context within which ICTs are accessed and used as including the resources available in the immediate environment, in light of users’ broader external operating environment (e.g. the home or school) and internal operating environment (e.g. the presence and nature of individual goals which reflects individual socio-economic status).32
32 “Internal operating environment” is my term to refer to the mind, drawing on Warschauer’s (2008:144) mention of personal goals.
Barrantes (2007) brings together supply and demand side issues in her model of levels of digital poverty (Figure 3-4), which illustrates a correlation between the context and personal factors with respect to levels of ICT use (or digital poverty). This reflects Sen’s Capability Approach (1999), as discussed for example by Munyua (2009:127) where the same set of resources can allow different functions because of the individual’s specific context and obstacles. Similarly, where individuals share a similar context, different resources and personal characteristics result in different levels of digital poverty (or well- being).
Regular access and use of ICTs is not always positive (Moolman et al., 2007:5). For example, Munyua (2009:119) showed how access and use of cell-phones resulted in greater exploitation of women. Through cell-phones, women were still contactable by other
household members when away from home. This allowed for women’s income-generating work outside of the home, while they remained responsible for domestic affairs (due to local patriarchal norms). Thus, ICTs can be used to the benefit of the marginalised; to their
detriment; or to maintain the status quo, illustrating the importance of viewing ICTs a tool, where the impact of access and use is determined in part by the local context. ICTs are an
Figure 3-4: Barrantes’ Digital Poverty diagrams
Source: Barrantes’ Digital Poverty table (2007:35) and Digital Poverty Level diagram (2007:36), combined.
“... amplifier of other social and economic factors and processes” (Warschauer, 2008:149) and therefore just as the social, geographic, economic, environmental, cultural, and political context influences the provision and quality of local ICT provision and infrastructure, so too do they influence the options, choices and actions of users.
[A]lways [bear] in mind that technology is only a tool. Many other interventions are needed to over-come the social, cultural, economic and educational barriers that exist in South Africa. (Snyman, 2007:130)
3.3.6 Tools for Action: Agency and Empowerment
Practitioners of ICT4D understand that technology itself cannot contribute to human development. What ultimately makes a difference in peoples' lives is the specific use of technology and the extent to which they help communities and individuals reach their development objectives. (Hamel, 2010:7)
Alongside education and knowledge, action is also central to poverty alleviation (Urquhart et al., 2008:203-205), as illustrated in Heeks’ information chain which progresses towards action (see Figure 3-3). However, before people will use ICTs as a tool for action, they need to be able to foresee potential benefits and drawbacks of use (Pinkett, 2000).
ICT devices with different applications and functions form a continuum of choice (Barrantes, 2007). Barrantes’ Digital Poverty framework shows degrees of access, which consider different types of use of the same device, as well as use of different digital and non- digital devices (see Figure 3-4). Demand for a particular type of ICT use then, depends on people’s subjective assessment of the costs and benefits of use and “[w]e might enter a vicious circle: the most excluded within marginalized sectors, those with no access to information, will never have demand, because they will never know the benefits of the service” (Barrantes, 2007:31). Similarly, Britz (2004) notes that at least some basic
information is needed, in order to be able to demand ICT use. For example, the speaker in Figure 3-5 is trying to find out whether a new model of phone will meet his needs.
ICT demand can be understood as the demand for information, communication and connectivity or participation (Barrantes, 2007:32; Vengerfeldt, 2003:9), positioning ICT use as a tool to satisfy needs relating to knowledge, social interaction and a sense of inclusion.
ICTs are a tool set within a basket of tools that can be used for personal or group
advancement. For example, socialising and networking face-to-face or self-reflection and goal-setting are also tools useful for personal development. By focussing on the effective