Patterns of ICT use reflect society. Those nations and people who enjoy higher levels of ICT provision, access and use are also those who most often enjoy better access to other resources and services, for example those who are better educated and more wealthy;
those that are male; and those that are from West European nations and the United States of America. While there has been much intention and activity aimed at promoting ICT provision, access and use in financially-poor countries, the level of provision, access and use in these countries remains very low (except for mobile-cellular ICTs). The push for the digitisation of poorer nations and of poorer people within nations is based on the prevailing belief that ICT use will promote development. However, aside from tangible and easily measurable socio-economic impact, evidence of positive impact from ICT use on the
numerous other aspects of well-being remains limited (Gomez and Pather, 2012; Sey, 2008).
A popular mechanism globally to provide ICT access to poorer people has been the
telecentre. Even though research has uncovered more failures than success stories, calls to abandon the telecentre model have not been heeded, with many pointing to inappropriate economic definitions of telecentre sustainability rather than social sustainability (Chib and Zhao, 2009); to the difficulty of establishing causality between PAC and human
development; and to unique aspects of successful examples of the impact of telecentre use on QoL.
The lack of a theoretical base for ICT4D (Flor, 2012) to guide the pursuit of pro-poor access, sustainability and impact was identified as contributing to a lack of evidence and insight into the causal links between ICT use and an improvement in well-being. Alongside this, the complexity and diversity of human development and of the rapidly-evolving ICT phenomenon, has frustrated efforts to establish how best to employ ICTs for development.
A range of authors have contributed useful concepts and insights which further our ability to understand links between ICTs and human development, together providing a theoretical
37 The relevance of the definition of personal characteristics is taken forward in sections 8.2 and 9.3.
anchor for the practice of ICT4D. The current approach to ICT4D can be summarised into eight core points:
a] The overriding agenda of ICT4D is pro-poor human development aimed at reducing inequality and transforming power relations, in pursuit of social justice.
b] The one-size-fits-all technologically-focussed approach is deficient. The socio-political, economic and cultural context impacts on ICT provision, access and use; just as it does on the other aspects of human behaviour and institutional provision of services.
c] Lack of information is a form of poverty. Furthermore, exclusion from the information society further marginalises those who are already marginalised in other ways (e.g.
politically, economically, and geographically). ICTs facilitate access to information and inclusion, and enable participation and social interaction, which together are directly related to the educational, social and psychological aspects of QoL.
d] Viewing ICTs as tools for needs-based use promotes a human agency approach, where alongside other tools, effective ICT use is that which addresses locally relevant needs and furthers self-defined goals. Viewing ICT use as a tool (rather than a goal in itself)
facilitates agency, leading to empowerment which promotes a better QoL.
e] A range of resources (e.g. access to transport or reasonable health) are needed for effective ICT use. This need for resources must be viewed in relation to the myriad of other activities that people need to engage in (which also require resources), to meet their basic survival needs. A specific resource needed to promote ICT use knowledge of the potential benefits and drawbacks of different types of ICT use.
f] Human resources needed include a range of skills that go beyond the mere ability to use ICT devices. These include skills to identify and organise information; to apply knowledge;
to imagine solutions and to set personal goals.
g] Links between ICT use and impact on well-being display alternate, recursive and multi- directional causality, which has proven difficult to identify, analyse and monitor. Logic modelling facilitate analyses of causality between ICT use and pro-poor development because they accommodate complexity, diversity and emergence. Locating ICT4D within a development framework that recognises complexity and diversity allows for a central focus is on people and their QoL.
h] ICT use is critical to the fight for a reasonable QoL and for the promotion of human rights, with increasing calls for ICT access (including the internet) as a human right. Government, as the main protector of human rights, has an obligation to provide ICT access in a
manner that addresses the multi-dimensional issues that prevent effective ICT use by those marginalised in society. This role for government includes promoting awareness of benefits; regulation of online content; and ensuring affordable access.
Kleine’s CF (2010b) is a comprehensive ICT4D logic model that accounts for complexity, diversity and emergence, reflecting the eight core aspects of current ICT4D theory noted above. The CF visually represents how structural factors combine with agency based on individual resources linked to personal characteristics, to affect the degree of individual empowerment. Empowerment to act allows people to pursue their goals and to progress towards leading the kind of life they value. Importantly, the CF it is applicable to
development activity in general, which helps to locate ICT provision, access and use within a broader development framework.
References to ICTs as empowering or enhancing capabilities (Gigler, 2004; Spence and Smith, 2010); the importance of needs-based ICT use (Vengerfeldt, 2003); and the role of community participation in the sustainability of telecentres (Chib and Zhao, 2009), suggest that a form of participatory methodology is appropriate for ICT4D research and practice. A number of ICT4D academics and practitioners use or support the use of PMs for
implementing or researching ICT4D (projects). Urquhart and colleagues (2008:206) regard the action research approach as compatible with exploring and promoting ICTs for
development, with reference to “soft and messy problem situations” found in the
development sector. Ng’ambi and Brown (2004:39) used action research claiming that it was “…ideally suited to the study of technology in its human context…” as it merged “…
research and practice, resulting in findings that are relevant to the context”. van Reijswoud (2009) used action research which resulted in a process which encompassed “...a community oriented and participatory focus to address the needs, expectations and limitations in which the technology is to be used”. Kleine (2010b) also supports the use of participatory
methodologies for ICT4D research, having based the CF on some of her own participatory research.
The following chapter considers participation and PMs in some detail to illustrate the applicability of a participatory approach to QoL and ICT4D research and development interventions, and to provide an understanding of the process and approach adopted by CLIQ.$$$$$$$
CHAPTER FOUR:
PARTICIPATORY METHODOLOGIES
4 PARTICIPATORY METHODOLOGIES
Research methodologies continue to evolve incorporating new insights. Methodologies are also reinvented adding little that it new, except for a new name. Respected by many, Guba and Lincoln (1994, 2005) periodically update their chapter on research paradigms in a handbook on qualitative research. Of note, is their addition of Participatory as a fifth research paradigm and voice, values and reflexivity as dimensions for the analysis of
research methodologies (Guba and Lincoln, 2005:194-195). Another example of work trying to enhance our approach to research is that presented under the name of Q-Squared, which explores alternative typologies or categories for data, methods and analysis that provide a finer differentiation than the common qualitative-quantitative divide (Shaffer et al., 2007:5).
This reflects an increasing trend for practitioners and academics to critically revisit old assumptions and a greater tolerance of or openness to new ways of doing things.
Participation and participatory approaches to research have become very popular amongst development professionals, practitioners, donors, civil society organisations and governments over the last two decades. For example, Hamel (2010:2) regards
“...participation and empowerment two essential components of contemporary theory and research about human development”. Along with this, there has also been significant criticism of participatory practice and the approach in general, fuelled by vastly different interpretations and implementation of participation.
After briefly considering the origins and names used to refer to PMs, this chapter presents on overview of critiques of participation and PMs, before returning to outline some of the fundamentals of the approach. I opted for this sequence because many of the issues underlying these critiques have been part of, or addressed by the various versions of participatory research and action since the 1970s, and probably even before that. By presenting the fundamentals of PMs after the critique, I show that many of the issues
Table 4-1: Common chapter abbreviations PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal
AR Action Research PR Participatory Research PA Participatory Approach PM Participatory Methodology PAR Participatory Action Research
par generic participatory action research
presented as challenges or problems, arise from the interpretation and implementation of PMs, and not in the failure of the bulk of PMs to recognise and engage with these issues.
Although discussion on research methodology is often presented together with a description of the research process, I have located this chapter within the literature review because the participatory approach used by CLIQ was simultaneously a research
methodology and part of the intervention (alongside ICT access, training and use).38 Furthermore, the concept of participation
shares theoretical and practical links with QoL, empowerment, ICTs and development, which will be elaborated on at the end of this chapter. Table 4-1 expands on the acronyms used in this chapter which can be confusing given the similarity of letters used.