the telecentre, either through direct needs-based use or from associated benefits of access to information, education and as a base for social interaction (Prado, 2010:10).
The overwhelming perception in the community was that the telecenter brought positive change to El Limón. Almost everyone agreed that the presence of the telecenter helped locals solve problems and provided a source of news and information. Practically all agreed that the telecenter helped empowered the community, fostered closeness, and trained young people for modern life. Most also agreed that the telecenter brought neighbors together to address common issues, helping them prepare for storms, imparting information about how to keep the water clean, and opening new markets for the goods produced in the area.
Many credited the telecenter for providing information about health and child care. (Prado, 2010:8)
While there are other examples of the pro-poor impact of telecentres and other ICTs, the development impact of ICT4D projects remains under-researched (Heeks and Molla, 2009:1). Studies that have been done, show mixed results specifically regarding telecentre access and use (Sey and Fellows, 2011; Spence and Smith, 2010), although many articles refer to how ICT use has the potential to promote development or improve well-being. It is difficult to attribute development impact directly to ICT use, particularly non-financial and non-economic impact. In some cases, an assessment of telecentre functionality or
sustainability is substituted in place of an assessment of development impact on the lives of people. This discussion is taken forward below, after considering supply.
Defining different types of PAC venues is problematic. As part of global work on telecentres, Coward cites the following definition as the closest to a commonly accepted understanding of telecentres, namely: “…entities which exist primarily to provide the general public access to computing and/or the Internet with the explicit intent to serve a
developmental purpose" (Toyama and Kenniston, cited in Coward, 2008:2). Key
differentiators between different types of telecentres (irrespective of name) relate to the PAC venue’s vision and purpose, namely whether they should function as a business or community service (Gomez et al., 2012b:14) and the numerous types of partnerships and roles between multiple stakeholders (Bailey, 2009; Prado, 2010). Non-commercial PAC venues (e.g. telecentres, school labs) have been the primary mechanism through which governments, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and donors have promoted ICT4D (Heeks, 2005b:1; Kumar and Best, 2007:1).
3.2.1 Recurring Issues for Telecentre Success and Failure
Research and documentation on problems with telecentre delivery is common. A decade ago, Roman and Colle presented themes for analysis of telecentre success based on their global work with telecentres (2002:4). Coward (2008) refers to a list of eight
“...onerous challenges...” facing telecentres (by Renee Kuriyan and Kentaro Toyama) as a good multi-study summary; and more recently, Sey and Fellows (2011:191) present seven common factors for financial success, drawn from over 20 papers.
Table 3-3 synthesises issues regarding telecentre success and failure from seven multi- country studies.28 For each of the ten issues listed, the table indicates which of the selected multi-country studies reported a finding in that regard, as well as which of three South African telecentre studies reported on the issue. I do not discuss these challenges, as the issues are commonly accepted across the literature and telecentre sustainability is explicitly noted as being a well-researched topic (Coward, 2008; Sey and Fellows, 2011). The purpose of Table 3-3 is collate the main issues affecting telecentre performance and sustainability, rather than indicate the frequency with which each aspect is referred to.
28 These multi-study summaries present issues affecting venue performance or sustainability either as challenges or in form of recommendations. Table 3-3 presents the aspects PAC venues underlying the challenges and recommendations presented in the ten articles.
Table 3-3: PAC venue performance and sustainability
Aspects of PAC venues affecting performance and sustainability South Africa Globally 1. The origin of the telecentre (TC) and the existence and nature of local
ownership and participation in various aspects of the TC.
Be_01 MM_03 Go_12
RC_02 SF_11
2. The local relevance of services, including: whether services are based on local needs; provision of locally appropriate information, software and listings of websites; and activities to place local content on the web.
Be_01 MM_03
Co_08 RC_02 SF_11 He_02 vR_09 3. The nature and clarity of the TC’s purpose and vision (often aligned as
either a business for profit or a community development service) and the nature of associated activities e.g. public education regarding the value of information and ICT use; and the promotion of girls’ computer use.
MM_03
Co_08 RC_02 SF_11 vR_09 Hu_01 4. The management of the TC with respect to sustainability, including:
defining social or financial sustainability; directing activities according to an established business plan; monitoring use; and researching local needs.
Be_01 MM_03 Go_12
RC_02 SF_11 5. Local demand for TC services is affected by social and community
access and use barriers e.g. user skills; awareness of applicability of ICT use to common life issues; social norms; usage charges; location and local transport options; and operating hours.
Be_01 MM_03
Co_08 SF_11 Hu_01 6. Supply and maintenance of technical hardware, software, networks
and connectivity.
Be_01 MM_03 Go_12
C_08 SF_11 vR_09 7. Good governance, organisational procedures and guidelines to deal
with reporting, accountability, maintenance, power contestation, finances, shocks (like fraud, repossession, theft) etc.
Be_01
MM_03 SF_11
vR_09 8. A local ICT4D champion and telecentre staff, including the skills,
attitude, motivation and capability of TC staff with respect to engaging with users; maintenance of technological hardware and software; and administration.
B_01 MM_03 Go_12
RC_02 Hu_01 He_02 Ur_08 9. Government support through appropriate policy, effective
implementation of policy, adequate systems to facilitate independent operation with adequate government oversight, public education and material support.
Go_12 RC_02
10. External linkages, networking, partnerships and multi-stakeholder platforms.
Be_01 MM_03
Go_12 Co_08
Abbreviations used above:
Citation for evidence from SA:
Be_01: Benjamin (2001) Go_12: Gomez et al. (2012b)
MM_03: Mphahlele and Maepa (2003)
Citation for multi-country evidence:
Ur_08: Urquhart et al. (2008) RC_02: Roman and Colle (2002) SF_11: Sey and Fellows (2011)
Hu_01: Hudson (2001) He_02: Heeks (2002) Co_08: Coward (2008) vR_09: van Reijswoud (2009)
There are numerous other studies reporting on issues affecting telecentres which I have not consulted. One such example is that of Chib and Zhao (2009), who present insightful lessons from rural projects in China and India. I draw on Chib and Zhao (2009) further on, because although similar problems with telecentre functionality are raised, their analyses reflects advances in ICT4D theory, rather than simply call for an end to investment in telecentres as a outdated or failed mode of delivery.
3.2.2 Evaluating Impact from Telecentre Initiatives
Studies have not established a clear link between public access to ICTs and socioeconomic change/impacts. Researchers are ... still limited in their ability to make definitive statements about impacts. There is a trend toward the view that the impacts of public access to ICTs are so highly tied to contexts that generalizability may be impractical. (Sey, 2008:3)
Research conclusions generally still speak to the potential rather than actual impact of public access to ICTs. Aside from the fact that impacts are difficult to measure and attribute, this could also be linked to the tendency for most studies to find that public access is
underperforming (Sey, 2008:3). In 2002, Heeks referred to “...the sustainability failures ... of most telecentre initiatives” (2002:5) and in 2005, called for a greater focus on mobile
telephony (Heeks, 2005a:12). Telecentres in poorer rural areas have raised “...serious questions about ... value and sustainability”, with the private sector catering mainly for the mostly urban “high telecentre e-readiness locations” (Heeks, 2005b). However, telecentres remained popular to fund despite no consensus on the usefulness of telecentres, and many documented failures (Bailey, 2009; Coward, 2008; Gomez et al., 2012b; Heeks and Molla, 2009; Sey and Fellows, 2011). With increasing attention from donors, governments and ICT4D academics on the impact of telecentres, “...it becomes increasingly important to empirically examine whether telecentres can provide an effective tool in promoting digital literacy and human development” (Prado, 2010:2). Sey and Fellows (2011) rightly point out though, that if telecentres are to be written off, it should be based on conclusive research.
Below, I discuss four of the key difficulties encountered when seeking conclusive evidence regarding PAC venue impact.
Sustainability of what? There are different types of impact evaluations and different perceptions and definitions of success (Coward, 2008). Some telecentre evaluations focus on financial sustainability, while others focus on social impact performance (Sey and Fellows,
2011), which partly explains the variation in results. Furthermore, some telecentres have established their own visions and goals and these may be very dissimilar from those of the evaluators (who may design evaluations to allow for comparable results across different telecentres). It makes sense to evaluate a telecentre with respect to its goals. Telecentre evaluation based on a universal or externally determined definition of success is unlikely to accurately reflect the telecentre’s achievements and successes. For example, a telecentre aimed at supporting local social justice groups will probably not fare well when evaluated for financial sustainability. Chib and Zhao (2009:154) argue that while financial sustainability does influence telecentre use, issues around social sustainability are more critical to effectiveness of telecentres and that a broader definition of success criteria is needed.
Debate needs to move beyond provision and access “...to an examination of the drivers and barriers to optimal usage of ICTs in achieving specific development indicators” (Chib and Zhao, 2009:147).
Comparing apples with blackberries: Numerous differences between PAC venues make comparison difficult. For example, substantial differences between the number of computers housed, the duration of opening hours and the reliability of a power supply, are some practical and measurable differences between telecentres. Other issues of difference include the type of people who frequent a telecentre and their purpose; the attitude of telecentre staff; and the functionality of relationships between key partners. These realities can make the experience of using a telecentre empowering and supportive, or dangerous and offensive. Thus with very different types of PAC venues, comparison across telecentres becomes more complicated, obscuring analysis of linkages between telecentre experiences and success (Coward, 2008).
Multi-causality and circularity: Exclusion from the information superhighway can further marginalize countries, groups and individuals who are already worse-off (Hafkin and Taggart, 2001). The emergence of ICTs as a key tool to facilitate many aspects of life, makes it more difficult for poorer people to attain (and maintain) a reasonable QoL without
effective ICT use, because of the “…negative effects of digital poverty on economic
development and social well-being...”(Prado, 2010:1).29 From this reasoning, lack of access to and use of ICTs is both a cause and effect of relative poverty between nations
(Warschauer, 2008:141), which applies equally at the level of the individual. Ng’ambi and Brown (2004:38-39) assert that “…the effect of technology is multi-causality impacted and has multicausal effect…” , which they name as the “…multicausal duality of technological effect …”. Thus, researching impact involves tracing multi-directional and circular causality.
Furthermore, the impact of digital inclusion can be positive and/or negative. Documented negative impacts include the use of the internet to perpetuate violence against women, human-trafficking and child pornography (Moolman et al., 2007:6), as well as cyber crime and terrorism (Spence and Smith, 2010:11). This adds complexity to unpacking causality with regard to development impact and individual changes in well-being, especially when considering the impact of criminal use of ICTs on the well-being of others.
Multi-causality and the socio-eco-political context of life: Causality between ICT use and development impacts is difficult to research (Sey and Fellows, 2011) and conclusions regarding such causality are not readily available (Heeks and Molla, 2009:112-114). Evidence of causality is illusive, at least because of the myriad of personal and contextual issues that impact on people’s thoughts, actions and circumstance (Harris and Chib, 2012:6) and the complexity of the development process (Kleine, 2010a:2). Gigler (2004:32) notes that the relationship between ICT use and empowerment is complex, dynamic and indirect and concludes that “... a direct and causal relationship between ICTs and empowerment” does not exist, “... but that in fact this relationship is being shaped by a dynamic, multi-
dimensional interrelationship between technology and the social context” (Gigler, 2004:1).
Other aspects adding complexity to researching the development impact of ICT use include working with indicators that are difficult to define and measure (like an increased sense of self-efficacy) and the changing nature of impact over time. Different time periods of ICT use are needed to attain different levels of impact, depending on the nature of the person and the type of impact. Thus the point at which an evaluation is done, affects the conclusions with respect to level of impact. A number of authors have drawn on empirical results to propose alternative approaches to ICT4D and suggest new theory, with different
29This leads to a discussion on ICT access as a human right, which is taken further in section 3.3.
foci. Many of them have recognised and incorporated multi-causality and the contextual complexity of ICT access and use through telecentres, in their analysis.