In previous blog posts we have looked at what the general barriers to digital learning have been in Africa during the pandemic. With this new post we will try to elaborate further on why these projects didn’t work. However we will see that, even when they don’t work, they are still useful to understand new things. In fact, it is important to monitor results to comprehend in what they fail and, when they succeed, if they really succeeded and why. It is also useful to consider the dark side of ICT4D (for example, as pointed out in a comment from the previous post on digital education, Kenia’s acclaimed distance learning co-occurred with an increase rate of domestic violence towards girls in that country). So how do you set up a truly emancipatory e-learning project? Through research projects with the beneficiary rather than for the beneficiary: participants have to understand the needs and interpret them correctly from a close perspective. We will see that they have to find a balance between technical and social objectives, between soft and hard views and between a top-down and bottom-up approach.
The difficulties related to digital learning in Africa during the lockdown are primarily dictated by some structural limitations related to the availability, accessibility and affordability of projects: the availability of internet connection and infrastructures in the first place, but also the possibility of accessing technology and the economic availability linked to the implementation of the project. The lack of solid basis made the delivery of digital learning totally impossible. We have previously seen how many governments totally abandoned online learning and switched to more traditional means, such as radio, TV or hard paper learning material. Very few cases of online learning were reported, not only because ICT does not have a mass presence yet in those countries but also because students and teachers would not have been prepared to such a revolutionary switch. Without participation in the making of ICT4D initiatives from the start or a training, the only way possible was to find alternatives that did not imply digital ways.
As illustrated by Heeks in his Information and Communication Technology for Development (ICT4D), in the Global North, monthly broadband usually costs less than 10 dollars in purchasing power parity terms while in majority of Africa the price is over 100 dollars. The book then explains that in addition to economic ones, ICT faces further types of barriers: educational, cultural, age or gender related. For example, the use of Facebook in a slum in Nairobi was differentiated among genders, with a more limited use from women trying to avoid online hassle from men. There is then a motivation barrier among those who are motivated in using an ICT4D tool and those who don’t find the benefits from it for their practical work and lives. Some can access data, competences, knowledge, technology, money or networks related to ICT4D while other cannot. An institutional barrier separates authorities within local institutions involved in ICT4D initiatives from those who are outside them. Other barriers divide “those who employ others in an ICT4D initiative vs. those who do not […] those who determine the discourse and meaning of ICT4D vs. those who do not”. (Heeks, 2017)
Despite these numerous divides, ICTs are “sold” as levelling artefacts that can help improve development countries’ economies and reduce poverty. However they can also contribute to “global class stratification through their concentrated ownership structure, research and development clusters and other effects”. They can improve poor people’ lives but also make the rich richer. Furthermore recent research showed a weak connection between ICT usage and per capita income (Murphy & Carmody, 2015). Nevertheless, leaving aside the economy for a moment, technologies and internet, if supported by an appropriate context and structure, can be truly beneficial for any person in any location, in terms of knowledge and learning possibilities and availability.
The presence of these barriers is irreconcilable with the effective development of an e-learning project, but countless other elements dictated by the complexity of the project are linked to this: the more complex the project, the more it will be necessary to evaluate all the elements that may hinder its success. For this reason, an institutional context is needed. Attempts to digital learning during the pandemic have failed because governments were not prepared at all. The emergency required fast solutions but time was too limited to make all communities connected and ready for properly use ICT4D, especially those in rural areas. Likewise, there was no time to network and partner with privates for the delivery of e-learning. Moreover, partnership with telecommunications companies and internet providers for a mere reduction of costs of services or provision of devices would have not been sufficient. Tailored learning approaches for reaching and motivating students in rural areas would have been needed.
Governments, privates and NGOs cannot simply fund technologies. They first have to make sure that these technologies will be effective and really useful for the beneficiaries. Those involved in ICT4D initiatives, must therefore prepare in great advance these initiatives and consider the long and complex work behind them. (Unwin, 2017). Unwin relates this hurry and crave of institutions, private sector and international community in delivering fast projects, to their ultimate scope, being economic growth. He claims for a change of rules and policies that should be more aimed at supporting the more marginalised and in need and at reducing inequalities than just simply pointing at increasing GDP. This regulatory change should not only involve stakeholders involved in infrastructure and electricity but also those in education, health, rural development, etc. ICT4D initiatives, in order not to fail, should be made up of stakeholders that all share the same scope of supporting the least advantaged. (Unwin, 2017)
The failure of e-learning projects must lead to an understanding of the causes of this failure. Only by investigating them will it be possible to understand the errors committed, which are often closely linked to the territorial context of reference. At the same time, it should be noted that “any partial failure can also be seen as a partial success since some goals are wholly or partly attained, in which case failure may be a disappointment but not a disaster. Failures – even total failures – may bring benefits if those involved and others learn from the experience”. (Heeks, 2017)
Despite almost half of African youth did not have access to digital learning during the pandemic, the fact that public discourse and institutional attention about the possibility of online learning delivery have started is undoubtedly positive. And so are results such as the higher distribution of digital tools, the motivation in using devices that increased in teachers, students but also their families or the gaining of new digital competences which are not strictly connected to learning.
Precisely because ICT4D projects are never total failures, a monitoring phase is essential to observe the results achieved and understand where the project was actually successful. Even though ICT4D initiatives often theorize about the importance of a serious and impartial monitoring and evaluation phase for their successful implementation, the reality implies very few ICT4D projects that involve a high-quality monitoring and evaluation as an actual part of their process. The lack of monitoring and evaluation makes it very difficult to understand the reasons and the extent of success of these projects. Moreover, when this information is provided, it is biased by the specific objectives of the study’s author and do not always reveal the successful factors to be replicated elsewhere (Unwin, 2017).
In the previous post, we have read how the solution of the Kenyan government was considered among the most successful ones. If effective factors such as Government’s partnership with a local and a Chinese companies or the participatory design of an enabling platform – DigiSchool – from the early stages were acclaimed, no mention was given to the increase rate of domestic violence towards students in lockdown or any other negative consequence in societal and human terms. The prevision of a comprehensive and impartial evaluation from the government or the other involved parties of the initiative seems unthinkable in an emergency phase but proves that such monitoring must not only involve infrastructures, but also people, society, health and human development.
It is thus essential to consider the dark side of ICT4D and deal with its possible harms before starting a project (potential risks being cybercrime; environmental damage; ICT-related social ills such as pornography, gambling and bullying; ICT-induced personal stress, conflict and addiction; restriction of rights to privacy and freedom of expression; and digital monopolies). By assessing in advance, the design and implementation can take place in such a way to avoid these risks. (Heeks, 2017)
So how do you set up an e-learning project for development? By searching for projects with the poor rather than for the poor: by learning from them and using their skills and expertise to serve their interest. (Unwin, 2017) Practitioners should understand the needs and interpret them correctly from a close perspective. They should balance between technical and human aspects. Delivering learning devices and requiring students to study remotely without knowing nor addressing their home situations cannot be the right way to implement ICT4D. ICT alone cannot immediately be the answer to any development problem. It can solve some but it can be of no use or even harmful for the more rooted others.
There needs to be a balance between the technical and the social aspects. The former without the latter would not work because the people would not be considered and answers to participants’ needs would not be provided. Social projects without technologies would not be so innovative and the opportunities given from technologies would be missed. Technology should be localised in its social context of course. In addition to that, rational and logical solutions must be searched together with more political view that goes over the limits of rationality. A third balance should “mixes top-down control, efficiencies and insights with bottom-up flexibility that understands the beneficiaries of development and their needs and agencies”. (Heeks, 2017) An e-learning course that does not take into account participants’ knowledge gaps and needs or that doesn’t consider their expectations about the way of delivering contents will not provide relevant results. The same occurs if the platform is not accessible or too advanced, or on the contrary if it is not sufficient because it did not benefit from technicians’ expertise.
“ICT can become too invisible, detaching the skills and resources needed to use and maintain ICT”. (Bentley, Nemer, & Vannini, 2019) The article suggests practitioners to be open and receptive enough to be aware of both emancipatory objectives and of the ICT situation. This way they can transfer this awareness to participants who will eventually build their own views and practices with ICT. Although this reflection will not increase their technical knowledge, it will allow them to acquire more power and control over ICT and thus more possibility for a change.
Talking about reflection on ICT, writing this blog was a very reflective exercise for me as well. It gave me the opportunity to learn more and elaborate about ICT, development and learning, all topics of deep interest to me. At the same time, it was a very useful exercise: writing is a skill that has to be constantly practiced over time. Blogging was a way of developing this habit. Post after post, I noticed to be faster in identifying errors and modelling my content in a more appropriate way.
Academic writing and blogging can seem very different in style: the former is more serious and persuasive while blogging is more informal and entertaining. However, writing this blog has also improved my academic writing as it helped me write more concisely. I had to compress many concepts into a post and I learned how to focus only on the main argument and cut out the rest.
Before writing I first had to perform some research and reading. I had to understand what topic to work on and where to find enough information and then go through the academic sources, social media or online news. This helped me find the more relevant information and understand whether what I had found was relevant enough. This practice can be useful for academic writing as well.
Finally, the more I publish my posts, the more comfortable I feel in exposing them to others. The feedback session was also very constructive, and feedbacks are essential in academic writing as well. There will always be things done wrong or to be improved that our colleagues or professors can make us notice. So, I really appreciated the other group’s of students suggestions for the Development Spotlight blog.
Sources:
Bentley, C., Nemer, D., & Vannini, S. (2019). “When words become unclear”: unmasking ICT through visual methodologies in participatory ICT4D. AI & SOCIETY, 477–493.
Heeks, R. (2017). Information and Communication Technology for Development (ICT4D). Abingdon: Routledge.
Murphy, J. T., & Carmody, P. (2015). Africa’s Information Revolution-Technical Regimes and Production Networks in South Africa and Tanzania. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Unwin, T. (2017). Reclaiming Information & Communication Technologies for Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.