May 17, 2012 · 9:56 am

Ensuring disability agendas are embedded effectively in national ICT strategies

At today’s WSIS Forum session on ICTs and disability (#ICT4DD) led by the Commonwealth Telecommunications Organsation and the UNESCO Chair in ICTD at Royal Holloway, University of London, more than 35 people in Geneva and some 15 people participating externally came together to explore ways through which accessibility/disability issues can be included more effectively in national ICT strategies.  Three breakout groups came up with some 17 main reasons why disability issues are not more included within such policies and strategies, and then identified 7 practical ways through which these challenges can be overcome.  Details of the outcomes are summarised in the mind map below (click on the image itself for a larger version, or the link below for a full sized version).

WSIS Disability session

Solutions recommended included:

  1. The need to build awareness
  2. Mainstreaming accessibility
  3. Providing incentives, whilst also using regulation and enforcement
  4. Education as a means for affecting cultural change
  5. Using a quality label as a means for creating a minimum standard
  6. Capacity development
  7. The involvement of all stakeholders (Nothing about us without us)

Thanks to everyone who participated, and to all of the session partners including the ITU, G3ICT, the University of Michigan, OCAD University, the Daisy Consortium, and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure initiative.

2 Comments

Filed under Accessibility, ICT4D

Tagged as , ,

May 16, 2012 · 5:24 pm

Accelerating development using the Web

George Sadowsky’s new edited book entitled “Accelerating development using the Web: empowering poor and marginalised populations” has just been launched at the WSIS Forum in Geneva.  This contains some really excellent material, and is an important resource for those interested in exploring ways through which the Web can be used by some of the world’s poorest and most marginalised people to enhance their lives. Generously supported by the Rockefeller Foundation, and produced in partnership with the World Wide Web Foundation and the UNDP, this book is designed as “a compendium of articles by recognized experts describing the real and potential effects of the World Wide Web in all major aspects of economic and  social development”.  Many of the authors combine academic and practical experience, and so this book is much more than just an arid digest of academic thinking on the subject.  It also challenges many of the taken for granted assumptions about the Web, and examines the structural conditions that limit its use by the poorest of the world’s people.  Chapters cover the following main themes:

  • Chapter 1 – Introduction (George Sadowsky)
  • Chapter 2 – Fundamental Access Issues (Michael Jensen)
  • Chapter 3 – Technical Access Issues (Alan Greenberg)
  • Chapter 4 – Policy Access Issues (Cynthia Waddell)
  • Chapter 5 – Governance (Raúl Zambrano)
  • Chapter 6 – Agriculture (Shalini Kala)
  • Chapter 7 – Health (Najib Al-Shorbaji)
  • Chapter 8 – Education (Tim Unwin)
  • Chapter 9 – Commerce and Trade (Torbjörn Fredriksson)
  • Chapter 10 – Finance (Richard Duncombe)
  • Chapter 11 – Gender (Nancy Hafkin)
  • Chapter 12 – Language and Content (Daniel Pimienta)
  • Chapter 13 – Culture (Nnenna Nwakanma)
  • Chapter 14 – Conclusion

It was great fun working with George and the team on this project, and I do hope that those who read it will find a sense of our commitment, enthusiasm and, at times, outrage.  The Web is in danger of becoming a vehicle through which greater divides are created in our societies.  We have to take specific actions if the enormous benefits that it can provide are to be made available to all of the world’s people.  This is most definitely not the same as saying that access to the Web should be a human right – something that I  most profoundly disagree with.  However, it is most certainly to suggest that we cannot simply take it for granted that providing Internet access will without question benefit the poor. If the poor and the marginalised are indeed to benefit from the Web, there have to be clear mechanisms that enable them to use it to deliver on their needs and aspirations.

1 Comment

Filed under Development, ICT4D

Tagged as ,

April 11, 2012 · 11:20 am

WISE Awards 2012 – applications open until 31st May

The World Innovation Summit for Education (WISE) Awards are now open for applications – until 31st May 2012.  If you are aware of people working on innovation initiatives that have transformed educational delivery, do encourage them to apply!

The WISE Awards are specifically designed to identify, showcase and promote innovative educational projects from all sectors and regions of the world to inspire change in education. Each year, a Jury composed of leading experts from the education world selects six innovative projects for their concrete and positive impact on communities and societies. Each winning project gains global visibility through the Awards process and receives a prize of $20,000 (US).  Since the creation of the Awards in 2009, over 1,300 applications from 116 countries have been received, resulting in 98 Finalists and 18 winning projects from across the world.

In 2012, one of the six awards will be given explicitly to a project that has best delivered innovative financing of primary education.  This reflects the support of the Qatar Foundation’s Chairperson Her Highness Sheikha Moza bint Nasser for the United Nations MDG 2 on achieving universal primary education and it is designed to stimulate innovative projects targeted at achieving this goal.

All of the necessary details concerning the awards are available on the WISE Awards website, which provides specific information about:

All relevant applications are first reviewed by a Pre-Jury of distinguished educationalists.  They will  recommend 24 finalists who will then be invited to submit more detailed applications for consideration by the prestigious Jury of international experts.

It is particularly important that applicants explain clearly and in detail how their projects deliver on the nine criteria by which the WISE Awards are judged:

1. Educational Transformation: the overall extent to which the educational activity has transformed an aspect of education that has also had societal impact. Applicants must show what aspect of education they have sought to transform, and the impact that the project has achieved, not only in educational terms but also through the effect that this has had on society more generally.

2. Sustainable Financing: the extent to which the educational activity is funded in a sustainable way and achieves value for money to ensure its continuing viability. Applicants need to show how their projects have sought to ensure continuing financial viability.

3. Innovation: the extent to which the educational activity is innovative in design and/or practice, thereby transforming traditional means of educational delivery. Innovation can be of many different kinds, but it is important for applicants to emphasize what is particularly novel about their project.

4. Inclusion and Diversity: the extent to which the activity includes a diversity of beneficiaries and has enhanced equality of access to education. Successful applicants will have paid special attention to ways through which their project has ensured greater equality of access to education, particularly through an increase in the diversity of those participating in learning opportunities provided through the initiative.

5. Quality of Learning: the extent to which the transformation has contributed to the improvement of the quality of learning. Applicants need to indicate what they understand by quality of learning, and show explicitly how the intervention has indeed enhanced this.

6. Scalability: the extent to which there is evidence that the educational activity has the potential to be scaled up effectively, or has already been replicated at a larger scale than originally piloted. For more recent projects, it is essential that applicants show explicitly how they will ensure that the initiative can be scaled up effectively.

7. Partnership and Participation: the extent to which the educational activity has established effective partnerships and includes participation from beneficiaries and stakeholders. Applicants need to indicate the character of the partnerships involved, and be explicit about the ways through which beneficiaries and stakeholders participate in the design and implementation of the initiative.

8. Monitoring and Evaluation: the extent to which there is evidence of effective ongoing enhancement of the program through regular monitoring and also evidence of formal internal or external evaluation procedures. It is important that applicants show how ongoing monitoring procedures have enhanced the project, and also how formal evaluations after completion of specific stages have contributed to the initiative’s subsequent development.

9. Dissemination: the extent to which the organization has already effectively disseminated and shared educational practices with other practitioners in a diversity of ways. Applicants should provide evidence of how they have already shared their educational experiences with other practitioners.

Leave a comment

Filed under Education

Tagged as ,

April 10, 2012 · 9:11 pm

Advice for students on ICT4D programmes…

I’ve just had a great question posed to me by Brooke Kania: “I was just wondering, what are you looking for in students who are coming out of IDEV or ICT4D programs – what do you think the field needs from academic training? What advice would you give to aspiring ICT4D professionals?”.  The question is easy; the answer is not!  Fueled by a couple of very good glasses of Chianti, let me have a go at responding.  Here then are the ten things I would look for, and also some reflections as to why:

  • A willingness to cross boundaries.  The great thing about ICT4D is that it is not (yet) a specific discipline, but brings together people from many different backgrounds.  Exciting things happen at the edges!  Get a computer scientist and a philosopher talking together, and great things can happen.  The only trouble is that most academic ‘life’ is now about becoming the global expert in a tiny field of academic enquiry, and despite the rhetoric of interdisciplinarity, old disciplinary boundaries remain strong!
  • Understanding the real needs of users.  Far too many ICT4D projects are invented by academics who have little clue about what the real needs of users actually are, and they are then surprised that the projects fail!  In part, this reflects the tyranny of the one year Master’s programme or three-year PhD, that limits the potential for a researcher to go into the field, really discover what would then make a difference to the lives of poor people, and then work with them to develop technologies that can really serve their interests.
  • Humility.  The Academy is all too often about ‘experts’ and people who claim to ‘have all the answers’.  In my experience, that is the death of enquiry and exploration.  There is much truth in the statement that “the more I know, the more I realise how little I know”.  Interestingly, I think I have met more ‘bright’ people outside universities than I have within them!  Far too often, academics create a language of obfuscation, to prevent others from understanding how ignorant they really are!
  • Being technically sound. ICT4D is fundamentally about technology – not necessarily in an instrumentalist way, but it is definitely concerned with technology, both how it is shaped by society, and also how it shapes society.  It is therefore essential that everyone working in the field of ICT4D does indeed have some technical grasp of technology.  That does not mean the impossible, in other words that everyone must understand all the relevant technologies, but it does mean that we should all have some pertinent technical expertise.  Thank goodness that  I learnt to programme in Fortran as a student!
  • A focus on really understanding ‘development’.  This is difficult, very difficult.  There are many definitions of what development is about, but anyone working in the field of ICT4D must address this question in their own way.  For me, development is about addressing the appalling inequalities that exist in our societies, and this is something very, very different from the hegemonic view that development is actually mainly about economic growth.  Capitalist economic growth can never eliminate poverty, and the sooner we abandon this misguided nonsense the sooner the world’s poor and marginalised people will be able to live the lives to which they aspire.
  • Get some real ‘development’ experience!  This is tricky for a student, but it is really impossible to understand the challenges and intricacies of ‘development’, however we define it, unless we have experienced it practically on the ground.  For some 20 years I did research and taught about development, but I never worked for a development agency, the private sector, or civil society organisation in that time.  In six months working for a bilateral donor agency, I learnt more about the practice of development than I did in most of my previous research on the subject!
  • Recognition that ICT4D is a moral, rather than a technical agenda.  This is closely linked to the above point, but I think it is different.  ICT4D should be about the normative – what should be – rather than what actually is.  Academics are generally quite good about describing what exists, but far too few go beyond this to suggest what they think should happen in the light of their analyses .  This is irresponsible!  Academics are hugely privileged, and they abrogate the trust placed in them by society if they do not use their research to make the world a better place.  They can only do this by having a vision for what the world could be like, and then engaging in political action to help shape that world.
  • An ability to engage in critical analysis.  This should lie at the heart of all academic enquiry, but all too often it doesn’t!  Far too much academic research repeats the obvious, albeit dressing it up in grandiose terms.  If we want to explain or understand a phenomenon, we have to keep asking the question “why?”.  I read so many papers that fail to do this!  If the interviews, questionnaires, or experiments that are undertaken do not seek to say why something is observed, then they remain purely descriptive and fail to add to our real understanding.  If you are a social scientist, just look at the questions asked in interviews, focus groups or questionnaires.  There will usually be many “what?”, “where?”, “when” or “who?” questions, but far fewer “how?” questions, and even fewer “why?” questions!  If we do not ask “why?”, we fail really to move knowledge forward.
  • Freedom to fail!  Far too much academic work is about getting students to regurgitate accepted truths – especially the opinions of those who teach them!  What we do not seem to allow students is the opportunity to experiment and fail.  I tend to think that people generally learn more from their mistakes than they do from their successes.  So, my advice would be to try something new, and not worry about the risk of failing.  That is where true innovation comes from.  In job interviews, I often tend to ask people about one of their failures, and then get them to think about what they learnt from it.  Those who claim never to have failed, don’t come up to the mark – especially in my book!
  • Be a good team player. It was difficult to think of a tenth piece of advice – there is so much that could be said.  However, I am convinced that ICT4D is about good team work.  None of us have all the necessary skills, and so if we are going to develop appropriate solutions, we must be able to work effectively together.  Far too much academic work is now about individual success – and we have lost the collective enterprise that so inspired me as a young academic.  Wisdom, scholarship and development are above all collective enterprises, and we need to embark on them together.

So, Brooke, I hope this gives you some ideas of my thinking right now.  Don’t get me wrong, this is not a tirade against the Academy.  Far from it.  Universities are a hugely precious element in our societies, and I value them enormously.  It is just, I fear, that too many institutions and individual academics have lost their way, and have become merely another tool in the hands of those who do not want us to be free.  Ultimately, it is hugely difficult for those committed to implementing real change in our societies to be based within universities; I have tremendous respect for those who remain fighting for their integrity and sanity.  ICT4D is about engagement, not just about writing papers in academic journals that few people will ever read.  Those who determine our research agendas should be the world’s poor and marginalised.

10 Comments

Filed under Higher Education, ICT4D

Tagged as , ,

April 5, 2012 · 9:57 am

Digital Wars by Charles Arthur – excellent new book

Rarely do I use my blog to write book reviews, but rarely do I enjoy books as much as Charles Arthur’s new Digital Wars: Apple, Google, Microsoft and the battle for the Internet.  Not only is this highly informative, but it is extremely well written. I used every spare moment – in other words take offs and landings on recent flights, when laptops have to be switched off – to read it!  He somehow manages to craft an exciting thriller out of what could have been written in a very arid and boring way – the recent history of Apple, Google and Microsoft.  This really excellent book builds on Arthur’s journalistic work over the last 25 years, and combines deep insights about the evolution of these companies with fascinating interviews with people who have been involved from the inside in their evolution.

Digital Wars begins with accounts of some of the key personalities involved – Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Page and Sergey Brin.  His story then kicks off with Steve Ballmer’s elevation to CEO at Microsoft, and the aftermath of the Antitrust trial, which Arthur sees as having had an enormous effect on the company.  At a rapid pace, the book is then structured around four themes:

  • development and control of “search” – seen primarily as a conflict between Google and Microsoft
  • the innovative shaping of a digital music industry, in which Apple outplayed Microsoft
  • the creation of smartphones
  • the emergence of tablets

This book is a “must read” for anyone who really wants to understand some of the changes that have taken place in the ICT industry over the last 15 years.  In some ways, the book can be read as being about the demise of Microsoft, and the rise of Google to be the lead player in search, and Apple the dominant force in digital music (iTunes) and top-end telephony (iPhone).  However, it is much more than this.  Arthur manages to weave into the text fascinating insights into leadership, the ways through which small individual decisions – both good and bad – can shape the future of whole corporations, and the ebb and flow of recent corporate takeovers.

Do get hold of a copy and read it.  There is much to be learnt about the past from Digital Wars to help us shape the future.

Leave a comment

Filed under Entrepreneurship, ICT4D

Tagged as , ,

March 15, 2012 · 10:57 pm

Reflections on multi-stakeholder partnerships for education

At the end of the last decade, I had the real pleasure of working with colleagues at the World Economic Forum and UNESCO on their Partnerships for Education initiative.  Amongst many other things, this generated a number of useful materials for anyone interested in developing such partnerships in the future – but note that these are now based on the UNESCO site at http://www.unesco.org/pfore/ (and not at the former PforE site!).

I was therefore really delighted when Alex Wong at the Forum invited me last year to work with him on writing a reflection on all that the World Economic Forum’s Global Education Initiative (GEI) achieved.  My one condition was that anything we wrote should reflect not only the successes, but also the problems and challenges faced by the initiative!  I think we often learn more by our failures than our successes.  In writing the report, we interviewed many of those who had been involved in the GEI’s various initiatives, and sought to craft a document that included many of their insightful comments.

This report has recently been published, under the title Global Education Initiative: Retrospective on Partnerships for Education Development 2003-2011 (Geneva: World Economic Forum, 2012).  As well as providing an overview on all of the diverse elements of the GEI, it draws together our reflections on the nine key things necessary for the implementation of successful multi-stakeholder partnerships for education:

  • High level leadership
  • A partnership broker that is knowledgeable about the education sector
  • That broker also being trusted and neutral
  • Beginning with the educational outcomes in mind
  • The central role played by Ministries of Education
  • Effective project management
  • Adequate and timely resourcing
  • Consistent strategy and flexible delivery and
  • Effective internal and external communication

The sixty page report contains much more than this, though, and I really hope that it will provide a useful guide for anyone thinking of using multi-stakeholder partnerships to deliver effective educational initiatives.

1 Comment

Filed under Development, Education

Tagged as ,

March 15, 2012 · 9:45 pm

Mobiles, Social Media and Democracy

The Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation (CTO) and the ICT4D Collective and UNESCO Chair in ICT4D at Royal Holloway, University of London convened a session on Mobiles, Social Media and Democracy (#SocMed4Dem) on 15th March at the ICTD2012 conference hosted by Georgia Tech in Atlanta.

This began with a debate on the motion that This house believes that the use of mobile supported social media is an effective means of promoting democracy.  Breakfast planning, led to a slight change of schedule!  So, the session began with Mario Maniewicz (Chief of Department, Enabling Environment and E-applications, ITU) providing an overview of some of the issues surrounding this complex subject.  Then the debate began in earnest.  Katrin Verclas (Co-Founder and Editor of MobileActive.org) set the ball rolling arguing vehemently in favour of the motion, to be followed by a sound rebuttal by Adam Salkeld (Head of Programme, Tinopolis).  Then the real challenge – both for me and the audience!  To balance things up, I filled in the gap by seconding the motion in favour – even though I would have preferred to speak against the motion.  Half way through, when I was arguing that anarchy is the only true form of democracy, I suddenly realised that one might say things that one does not necessarily actually mean when one is debating.  My short intervention should have had a health warning!  And the debate concluded with a brilliant tour-de-force by Alan Fisher (Senior Correspondent, Washington DC, al Jazeera).  After numerous interventions from the floor, the final vote (including contributions by Tweets) was 21 in favour and 19 against!  Thanks to Caitlin Bentley so much for video streaming the debate and managing the Twitter feed!

After the ‘refreshments’ break, we broke up into small discussion groups, each chaired by one of the speakers, to explore the policy implications of four of the most important themes to emerge from the debate: access (chaired by Mario), privacy and security (chaired by Katrin), the relevance of historical sociology of technology and democracy (chaired by Adam), and ICTs against democracy: the ‘dark side’ (chaired by Alan).

The mind map below provides a summary of the fascinating discussions as presented in the final closing plenary.

Click on the image for a large sized (readable) version!

Video of the debate

Caitlin Bentley has compiled a ‘story’ of the #SocMed4Dem debate at #ICTD2012 at http://storify.com/cbentl2/mobiles-social-media-and-democracy

2 Comments

Filed under 'phones, ICT4D

Tagged as , , ,

March 14, 2012 · 2:17 am

Never ever, ever, ever fly through Atlanta’s Hartsfield Jackson (so-called) International Airport

I have just spent almost two hours trying to escape from Atlanta’s so-called international airport, and have to say that it was without any doubt, far and away the worst experience I have ever had trying to leave an international airport – and I only had hand luggage!  The slowness, rudeness, incompetence, inefficiency and downright unpleasantness of the people and machines were unbelievable.

First, we had to queue for well over an hour to get through the passport check, fingerprints and retinal scans. We were herded like cattle through a very slow moving roped off set of alleyways.  There were only a handful of officials on duty, with many ‘gates’ empty.  It was designed to raise our temperatures, and if I had not been in a hurry it would have been faintly amusing listening to the comments in the queue.  The ‘officials’ seemed to be spending as long as they possibly could with each person arriving; there was no sense of urgency at all. Then, nearing the end, when I was in line to be ‘checked’, the officious official who was guiding us to the scanning point ordered me to move one foot to the left!  I could not believe it.  There was a wide open space and I had to move one foot to the left.

The sense of power and control that these unpleasant people have is quite unbelievable.  It is rather like many of those on baggage security checks across the world who take joy in making life as miserable as possible for travelers, ordering them around!

At last, I was in front of the person who was going to take my fingerprints and retinal scan.  In the old days – and they were good, very good – only criminals had their fingerprints taken.  Just think what the US government might do with all of our biodata.  So, I decided to be nice, and got a word in first, asking him what kind of day he had had, saying he looked as tired as I did.  It worked!  He smiled!  He had started work at 5.30 this morning, with a break for lunch, and it was by that time nearly 8.45 in the evening!  Anyway, I will give him credit – he processed me politely and swiftly, for which I am very grateful.  I certainly had vastly better treatment than many others in the queue.

I was lucky!  I only had hand luggage so did not then have to wait for any checked baggage – but I’m sure it would  in any case have come through by then!  So, next we had to queue to hand in our customs declaration form – just to show we were not bringing in anything that might be against US regulations.  Fortunately, I went through that fairly swiftly.  Any normal person would expect then to be able to walk out of the airport and get a taxi.

But no, not at Hartsfield Jackson International Airport.  Wait for it.  Can you imagine what happened next?  Yes, another bag check and full body scan. And this was simply to get out of the airport! I had to join yet another snaking queue, to have my bags checked.  Yet again, jackets off, shoes off, computers out with everything being put in trays.  Officials shouted at us to get in the correct lines.  One poor gentleman from India, was totally confused as to whether he was being shouted at or not.  And the stench!  I have no idea what it was, but it was definitely the most evil smell I have encountered in any airport in the world!  And then the body scan. Everything, even handkerchiefs has to be taken out of pockets, and some of us were chosen to be placed in this scanning device.  No notices about what it would do, any potential health issues, or what would happen to the images after they had been taken.  I was simply forced through.

At last, I thought I was free.  But they did not like the look of my laptop and notepad, so back it had to go through the bag scanner.  Even then, when of course nothing was found, it took a good 20 minutes to walk to the shuttle train that took me to the concourse from whence I was at last able to get a taxi.

How nice it was to see an Ethiopian driver, who brought with him a sense of history, of culture and of hospitality.  What on earth was he doing here in this land of oppression I asked myself.  What horrors had he left to make his home in this neo-fascist place I had arrived in.

It made me think of all the other airports I have visited recently.  Perhaps the best comparison is with Beijing airport.  What luxury!  What efficiency!  What civility!  It is so easy to get through Beijing, and one is treated with dignity and hospitality by the Chinese officials.  Perhaps this is a reflection that China has become the world superpower, and because it does not try to impose democracy on other countries at the end of a gun or bomb, it does not have to be so preoccupied with ‘protecting its borders’.  In Atlanta, the symbolism of officials shouting and ordering people around, herding them like cattle in pens, scanning them for biodata and personal information, reminds me of the fall of other empires.  Petty bureaucrats who get their kicks out of being deliberately unpleasant. The use of machines to control people’s freedom.  The sense of oppression and foreboding.

And then, I often hear USAns complaining about Heathrow airport.  What absolute hypocrisy and cheek! Heathrow is bliss compared with Atlanta.

You have been warned!  Never travel through Atlanta airport if you can possibly avoid it.  Better still, avoid Atlanta itself!  What a pity, I have such good friends here.

3 Comments

Filed under Ethics, Story-telling

Tagged as , ,

February 17, 2012 · 2:39 pm

Buddhist monuments at Anuradhapura

At the end of the Asia-Africa regulatory conference in Colombo, our hosts took us on a tour to the ancient capital of Anuradhapura in the central north of Sri Lanka.  It has an impressive collection of Buddhist monuments, spread over an area of some 16 square miles.  King Pandukanhaya made Anuradhapura his capital in the 4th century BC, and the organised plan of the city with its complex water systems suggests that it may have been designed according to a master plan. Under King Devanampiya Tissa, who ruled from 307 to 267 BC, Buddhism was introduced to Sri Lanka, and subsequently numerous dagobas (or stupas), as well as monastic buildings and pokunas (tanks for bathing or drinking water) were constructed.  A selection of images from the city – including birds, monkeys and a snake charmer – are in the slide show below.  Thanks to Anusha Palpita for his generous hospitality in enabling this ‘adventure’.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Leave a comment

Filed under Photographs

Tagged as , ,

February 15, 2012 · 5:45 pm

Sri Lankan dancing at the Africa-Asia Regulatory Conference

Every evening of the first Africa-Asia regulatory conference hosted by the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission of Sri Lanka and organised jointly with the Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation we were entertained by different groups of dancers and musicians who shared something of the country’s rich and diverse cultural heritage.  I hope that the images below capture something of the beauty of Sri Lankan dancing.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Leave a comment

Filed under Photographs

Tagged as ,