In his paper ICT4D 2016: New Priorities for ICT4D Policy, Practice and WSIS in a Post-2015 World[1], Richard Heeks said:
ICT4D policy and practice are fragmented across many thousands of organisations, tens of thousands of projects, hundreds of thousands of communities, and billions of individuals. The closest we currently have to a node is WSIS: part-structure, part-process that acts as a centripetal force strong enough to draw some ICT4D fragments together.
There are many pieces, or as Heeks himself would put it – “real world fragments”, that were supposed to be there but weren’t included in the WSIS+10’s Review and “Beyond 2015” activities. Although the misses weren’t minor, they weren’t strong enough to diminish the fact that WSIS is indeed the best state-of-play guide we have for ICT4D.
Out of the list of topics that were underrepresented in WSIS, the one that struck me most was the dark side of ICT4D. Technology isn’t void of perils and ironically, the very same technology that provides us with more comfort and ease are the ones that pose a greater threat. And I don’t mean “just security and privacy issues” (by the way, security and privacy are anything but small), but also the cost and failures of ICT4D, short and long term ill effects of ICT, elite ICT workers taking the lion’s share in opportunities and benefits and, a personal favorite, the loss of work-life balance which is essential for any human being to well, stay human.
When talking about ICT4D’s current path, a keyword that comes to mind is “transform” but as Heeks (2014a) said:
First, there is the threshold problem – when is a change sufficiently large to be classified as ‘transformative’ as opposed to just ‘incremental’? Second, there is the direction problem – transformation of what? Of context (e.g. structures)? Of inputs (e.g. goals, visions, aspirations)? Of processes (e.g. business models, partnerships)? Of outputs (e.g. inclusion, sustainability)?
Oftentimes big words such as transform and impact need to be carefully defined so that they don’t get lost in translation or worse, lose their meaning however deep they were supposed to be.
Technology influencing society and vice versa present us two different stories happening simultaneously. Take for example the money transfer service that has swept Kenya[2]. This is interesting because on one hand we have a solution that is inclusive, effective and cheap and on the other hand it also threatens to close down several businesses if they will not create competitive offers for their market. It presents us the correlation between an aggressive and well formulated economic framework hinged on technology and capitalism and rapid social changes. The stories behind ICT4D are dynamic, unpredictable and complex. They show us that different theories at one point or another in time, sometimes even concurrently, can be true.
A lot of things has happened since 2016 and ICT isn’t showing any sign of stopping or at least slowing down from its continuous change – upgrades, innovations, reinventions and everything in between. Try as we may to put a certain level of constraint on it, in the end it will always be a challenge especially in the socio-economic front. WSIS has already laid down the ground work and surely there are tweaks needed, say improvements here and there. It is but human to feel worried when a Goliath of a task stands before us but so much time, effort, blood, sweat and tears have been given so we can get to where we are now that the only choice we have left is to simply rise to the occasion.
References:
[1] Heeks, Richard. “ICT4D 2016: New Priorities for ICT4D Policy, Practice and WSIS in a Post-2015 World.” ICT4D 2016, 2016, hummedia.manchester.ac.uk/institutes/gdi/publications/workingpapers/di/di_wp59.pdf.
[2] “Kenyan Mobile Money Grows amid Decline in Traditional Card Payments.” Oxford Business Group, 26 Apr. 2018, oxfordbusinessgroup.com/news/kenyan-mobile-money-grows-amid-decline-traditional-card-payments.
