Posted by 
In this blog post, I attempt to explore ICT for development (ICT4D) through the lenses of participation, linking it with academic discussion. ICT4D efforts are permeated by multiple discourses about participation (Singh & Flyverbom, 2016). I try to present factors that have an impact on participation in the world of ICT4D and then ponder it from the gender perspective to also touch upon my previous blog post. Finally, I am going to reflect on my interesting blogging journey in general.
Introducing ICT4D
The presence of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in people’s daily lives has had major impacts on many levels. Certainly, ICTs are intertwined and embedded in individual and collective identities and environments growingly, and while people’s lives are more and more integrated with information and communication technologies around the world, there is still great disparities in the values, uses, and benefits of ICTs (Bentley, Nemer & Vannini, 2019). Understanding the processes by which information and communication technologies can foster socio-economic development is challenging, and the complexity is manifolded when accounting for the actors involved (Thapa & Sæbø, 2016).
Today, digital tools, digitization, and datafication are permeated many domains of development practice: many international NGOs, foundations, bilateral and multilateral donors, and business actors have dedicated groups for digital development and innovation (Dearde & Kleine, 2021). According to Singh and Flyverbom (2016), ICT for development (ICT4D) involves development initiatives that prioritize the role of information technologies and infrastructures, concerning especially the implementation of development projects at the grassroots level whose foundation is originated from international organizations, governments, and NGOs.
Most references to ICT4D are in the context of using ICTs to advance the different stages of development to catch up to progress in the North and therefore, ICT4D generally “refers to the possibilities created through the access to and use of ICTs for development as modernization” (Steeves & Kwami, 2012, p. 200). Haikin and Duncombe (2013) also note that technology and ICTs are Western constructs that are driven mainly by large Western multinationals and US/European governments, making ICT4D part of a modernizing project that brings technology from richer countries to improve people’s lives in poorer countries.
Let’s talk about participation
Since the middle of the 1990s, the term participation has turned into one of the most central buzzwords in the international development discourse (Bliss & Neumann, 2008). Tufte (2017) notes that participatory development has been a core but yet a debated issue in social change. He highlights that when discussing participation in social change processes, it is also about discussing questions of voice, agency, activism, and empowerment. In addition, the role of communication is central in enhancing participation (Tufte, 2017).
Waisbord (2014), points out that participatory approaches lean on the notion that communication should trigger critical reflexivity and dialogue and raise consciousness. Communities should be the main protagonists of social change and they should determine challenges and courses of action to deal with problems through dialogue and critical thinking (Waisbord, 2008). Participation can provide new opportunities for voice, without pre-determined consequences (Williams, 2004).
Participation is concerned with people in question when it comes to development – they should be in charge of their own development. Sounds beneficial and logical, does it not? However, unfortunately this also involves some concerns. As Williams (2004) points out, when people are to become empowered subjects or even authors of their own development, it can lead to the situation where any blame for any possible project’s failures is displaced from macro-level concerns, and re-localised onto people in question, making them bad participants/non-participants. This kind of practice obviously is problematic when it comes to fostering the empowerment of people.
One of the problems associated with participatory development is that it tends to celebrate the local without clearly recognizing the political and social issues of the local (Tufte, 2017). According to Williams (2004), there are three interrelated failings related to participatory development: “of emphasizing personal reform over political struggle, of obscuring local power differences by uncritically celebrating ‘the community’, and of using a language of emancipation to incorporate marginalised populations of the Global South within an unreconstructed project of capitalist modernisation” (p. 558).
Servaes (2020) states that participation contains the redistribution of power. There is always a complex matter of power involved when it comes to participation. Power is also both visible and invisible, making it challenging to observe, recognize, and know its influence within its context, especially when looking at it from the outside.
Participation and ICT4D: promises and pitfalls
As focusing on the inclusion of local actors in the development process, participatory development is clearly relevant to using ICT4D (Thapa & Sæbø, 2016). Technological empowerment is a laudable aim for ICT4D (Haikin & Duncombe 2013), and ICT4D projects aim to improve the material and social conditions among marginalized and poor people with the help of information technology applications (Singh & Flyverbom, 2016).
According to Bentley et al. (2019), participatory ICT4D often focuses on a specific technology as a subject of design, or on a development objective that is enabled by ICTs, and it can have practical or emancipatory objectives with an attempt to empower and protect poor and marginalized populations. Importantly, the application of participatory development should enhance an understanding of who are the participants, what is the purpose of the development intervention and who will benefit from it, and how the proposed participation and development is going to be sustainable in the context of ICT4D (Thapa & Sæbø, 2016).
Participants of ICT4D projects can have significant contributions to make in the use and design of ICTs in their lives, and in addition, new emancipatory principles can emerge when participants learn and experiment with ICTs (Bentley et al., 2019). When thinking about the Internet, for example, it is not just a tool for promoting development and social change, but it also provides spaces where the change can take place: people need information in order to participate effectively in the political, economic, and social spheres and also for their ability to foster social change in those spheres (Oyedemi, 2020).
Participatory development is central to the success of ICT4D projects but certainly, caveats also exist (Thapa & Sæbø, 2016). One of the problems within participatory methods in ICT4D that Bentley et al. (2019) highlight concerns emancipatory logic as there is a disjoint between emancipatory logic that emphasizes freedom, protection, and empowerment whereas the structural character of ICT can be disempowering and harmful. Haikin and Dumcombe (2013 p.22) point out that it is critical “not overlook complex technical and socio-political issues such as power structures, people’s ability to participate, and the concepts of latent need and technological empowerment”.
Unwin (2017) notes that many ICT4D initiatives have been designed for the poor, often with good intentions, but these initiatives have failed due to insufficient involvement of the people in question. Similarly, Haikin and Duncombe (2013) emphasize that the importance of representation of the needs of all groups, especially the marginalized ones. Thapa and Sæbø (2016) state that the involvement of local leaders and respected interest groups needs to be appreciated and their involvement should be included very early in the process to spread awareness of the potential benefits of projects to the societies in question and to avoid the misuse of power. Indeed, understanding the influence of local power structures is essential (Haikin & Duncombe, 2013).
Furthermore, Unwin (2017) suggests that ICT initiatives focused on the poorest should be holistic and bring together relevant stakeholders in their design and implementation. Haikin and Dumcombe (2013) also note that participatory design techniques highlight the importance of identifying different types of stakeholders and also working with them, separately and together.
The concept of participation is not really that simple when we look at it through the lenses of development. Issues related to both participation and ICT4D, and also within, are interlinked. Just inviting someone to participate is insufficient: it also requires the motivation and opportunity to participate, skills and confidence to have a voice, and a structure that makes sure that this voice is heard and is translated into influence (Haikin & Duncombe, 2013). In addition to having the required access and technology equipment, there is also a matter of digital literacy that needs to be considered when we talk about participation and ICT4D. In order to participate, people need an adequate understanding of technology and knowledge and skills on how to use it. How can you truly participate in something, with the help of ICTs, if you do not really know how?
In case the participants are not sufficiently equipped to participate fully, it can be counter-productive and reinforce instead challenging entrenched power structures and marginalization (Haiken & Duncombe 2013). Thapa and Sæbø (2016) highlight the importance of the local knowledge to identify competence within societies, or to identify the potential for enhancing competence within the local societies related to technology. To empower people to develop a critical consciousness of ICTs is one of the remaining challenges to be met, as they are not neutral and people hold diverse meanings and uses for ICTs regardless of their intended purpose (Bentley et al., 2019). Furthermore, Unwin (2017) emphasizes the significance of developing appropriate content to empower the poor and integrating this with comprehensive programs to support them to use it in their own interests. Overall, it is important to pay attention to issues beyond access to ICTs and focus on questions about knowledge and creation, agency, and empowerment (O’Donnell & Sweetman, 2018).
However, no matter how the participatory approach is used in any ICT4D project, the factors shaping the way how a developing community is included in ‘the digital world’ are still conditioned by external political forces (Haiken & Dumcombe, 2013). Again, power raises its head.
Participation and ICT4D: the perspective of gender
My first blog post included the great statement of O’Donnell and Sweetman (2018) about how technology mirrors the societies that have created it, and how access to and the effective use of technologies is affected by intersecting spectrums of exclusion, such as gender. With this, I wish to incorporate and re-visit my previous blog post. I discussed the digital divide in participation in learning from the point of view of gender, and how the digital divide has hindered participation in learning especially during the COVID -19 pandemic. I also had an opportunity to discuss the digital divide and its complexity with my fellow students in our group podcast.
According to Vemula (2020), the digital divide involves more than the adoption of technology: it also deals with a social, economic, cultural, political, and technological divide, for example. The pandemic has made the digital divide even more evident, and it has certainly shed light on already existing inequalities around the world. Especially girls’ education has been disrupted heavily due to the pandemic which I also touched upon in my previous blog post. The gender digital divide is yet very evident and there is still a lot of work to do to enhance women’s opportunities in accessing and using ICTs. According to Steeves and Kwami (2012), the rhetoric of inclusivity is much used in the dialogue on ICTs but yet, particularly women and girls in lower economic are at the margins of ICTs decision-making and implementation.
McCarrick and Kleine (2019) also discuss the viewpoint of gender in ICT4D and state that gender has been increasingly framed as one of the remaining frontiers of digital inclusion and exclusion. They note that the most common approach of mainstreaming gender into ICT4D has been a focus on the number of female and male participants involved in development interventions. In addition, they point out the fact that grouping all women together in a single homogeneous category is a simplifying notion of inclusion. What about focusing on possible factors hindering women to participate in ICT4D projects? Or exploring possible impacts and outcomes that ICT4D projects may have provided for women that have been able to participate in such programs? Proving women’s participation in ICT4D projects by figures is not enough. Moreover, it is not definitely sufficient to measure participation, not to mention empowerment, through figures when truly participatory approaches are greatly needed.
Although ICTs are not the only factor that can support women’s empowerment, women who do not have access to or who are not able to afford ICTs, are potentially disempowered because of a lack of voice and participation within the information sphere (Mackey & Petrucka, 2021). As mentioned earlier in this blog post, the necessary skills are also required to be able to use ICTs efficiently. For ICTs to serve as a tool of social inclusion, empowerment, and economic opportunity for women, providing access opportunities, tools, and content particularly suited to the priority needs of women is needed while it is also important to pay attention to the ways in which ICTs can reinforce existing gender inequalities (McNamara, 2003). Development consultants working in ICT4D projects need to have the required knowledge and awareness about gender-related issues regarding ICTs but also within the local context.
Concluding remarks and reflections
An essential aspect to consider in processes of social change is a critical engagement with ICT (Bentley et al., 2019). Haikin and Dumcombe (2013) point out that ICT4D practitioners need wide-ranging skills, including technical areas, development management, participatory methods, facilitation, and knowledge and awareness of power structures, socio-cultural situations, and politics. I would also add the necessity of awareness, sensitivity, and knowledge about gender-related issues to this list.
Importantly, as Unwin (2017) states, everyone involved in ICT4D should focus their attention on the needs and interests of the poorest and most marginalized – those on very low incomes, with disabilities, or the ones excluded because of race, color, or gender. This viewpoint in approaching and working with ICT4D is greatly needed.
The perspective of “leave no one behind” is the central part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). People are left behind when they do not have the choices and opportunities to participate in their development and benefit from development progress (United Nations Development Program, 2018). It is evident that ICTs will play a significant role when attempting to work towards the promise of leaving no one behind.
Planning and creating our blog, Digging Digital Development, was truly a great learning experience. It was hard work at times, especially due to some time constraints we had for blogging. Furthermore, I can say that blogging was a very interesting, fun, and thought-provoking exercise. In fact, I hope to engage with blogging even more in the future to develop the way and style of my writing and also to find my own voice in writing. This was a good starting point.
All in all, my learning and views on digital development have expanded as the blogging exercise provided a fruitful opportunity to dive deep into the world of ICTs especially from the viewpoint of communication for development. As Paulo Freire (1970/2005, p.72) puts it: “knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry human beings pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other.” It is certainly noteworthy to say that what was making this experience even greater was my fellow students. Exchanging ideas and views on digital development throughout the course, both in discussions and comment sections of different blogs, provided great insights and opportunities to learn.
References
Bentley, C.M., Nemer, D. & Vannini, S. (2019). ‘When Words Become Unclear’’: Unmasking ICT through Visual Methodologies in Participatory ICT4D. AI & Soc, 34, 477-493. DOI: 10.1007/s00146-017-0762-z
Bliss, F. & Neumann, S. (2008). Participation in International Development Discourse and Practice “State of the Art” and Challenges. Institute for Development and Peace, University of Duisburg‐Essen (INEF‐Report, 94/2008).
Dearde, A. & Kleine, D. (2021). Interdisciplinarity, Self-Governance and Dialogue: the Participatory Process Underpinning the Minimum Ethical Standards for ICTD/ICT4D Research. Information Technology for Development, 27(2), 361-380, DOI: 10.1080/02681102.2020.1840321
Freire, P. (2005 [1970]). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 30th Anniversary Edition. New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group.
Haikin, M. & Duncombe, R. (2013). A Framework to Assess Participation and Empowerment Impacts of ICT4D Projects. Development Informatics Working Paper 55. Manchester, UK: Centre for Development Informatics Institute for Development Policy and Management.
Mackey, A. & Petrucka, P. (2021). Technology as the Key to Women’s Empowerment: a Scoping Review. BMC Women’s Health, 21(78). DOI: 10.1186/s12905-021-01225-4
McCarrick, H. & Kleine, D. (2019). Digital Inclusion, Female Entrepreneurship, and the Production on Neoliberal Subjects – Views from Chile and Tanzania. In Graham, M. (ed.), Digital Economies at Global Margins (pp.103-127). Ottawa, ON/Boston, MA: IDRC/MIT Press.
McNamara, K.S. (2003). Information and Communication Technologies, Poverty and Development: Learning from Experience. A Background paper for the InfoDev Annual Symposium. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
O’Donnell, A. & Sweetman, C. (2018). Introduction: Gender, Development and ICTs. Gender & Development, 26(2), 217-229, DOI: 10.1080/13552074.2018.1489952
Oyedemi, T. D. (2020). The Theory of Digital Citizenship. In Servaes, J. (ed.), Handbook of Communication for Development and Social Change (pp.237-255). Singapore: Springer.
Servaes, J. (2020). Communication for Development and Social Change: In Search of a New Paradigm. In Servaes, J. (ed.), Handbook of Communication for Development and Social Change (pp.15-27). Singapore: Springer.
Singh, J.P. & Flyverbom, M. (2016). Representing Participation in ICT4D Projects. Telecommunications Policy, 40, 692-703.
Steeves, H. L. & Kwami, J. D. (2012). ICT4D, Gender Divides, and Development: The Case of Ghana. In S. Melkote (ed.), Development Communication in Directed Social Change: A Reappraisal of Theory & Practice (pp.199-217). Singapore: AMIC.
Thapa, D. & Sæbø, Ø. (2016). Participation in ICT Development Interventions: Who and How? The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 75,(3), 1-10.
Tufte, T. (2017). Communication and Social Change: A Citizen Perspective. Oxford: Polity Press.
Unwin, T. (2017). Reclaiming Information & Communication Technologies for Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
United Nations Development Program. (2018). What Does It Mean to Leave No One Behind? A UNDP Discussion Paper and Framework for Implementation. United Nations Development Program. Retrieved from https://www.undp.org/publications/what-does-it-mean-leave-no-one-behind
Vemula, R. K. (2020). Diffusion and Adoption of an E-Society: The Myths and Politics of ICT for the Poor in India. In Servaes, J. (ed.), Handbook of Communication for Development and Social Change (pp.953-960). Singapore: Springer.
Waisbord, S. (2008). The Institutional Challenges of Participatory Communication in International Aid. Social Identities, 14(4), 505-522.
Waisbord, S. (2014). The Strategic Politics of Participatory Communication. In Wilkins, K G., Tufte, T. & Obregon R. (eds.), Handbook of Development Communication and Social Change (pp.147-167). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.