skip to main content
10.1145/1940761.1940772acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiconferenceConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Technology as amplifier in international development

Published:08 February 2011Publication History

ABSTRACT

Amplification theories of information technology argue that technology is primarily a magnifier of existing institutional forces. In this paper, these ideas are synthesized and augmented for an amplification theory of "information and communication technology for development" (ICT4D), the study of electronic technology in international development. Three mechanisms for amplification are identified, arising out of differentials in access, capacity, and motivation, and the ideas are developed using examples from telecenters, television, and mobile phones.

The amplification thesis contradicts theories that imply that technology's impact is additive or transformative in and of itself, e.g., that access to technology levels the playing field of power, or that the Internet, per se, democratizes access to information.

The consequences of an amplifier theory for ICT4D are that (1) technology cannot substitute for missing institutional capacity and human intent; (2) technology tends to amplify existing inequalities; (3) technology projects in global development are most successful when they amplify already successful development efforts or positively inclined intent, rather than seek to fix, provide, or substitute for broken or missing institutional elements.

References

  1. Agre, Philip E. 1998. Yesterday's tomorrow. Times Literary Supplement. July 3, 1998, pp. 3--4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Agre, Philip E. 2002. "Real-Time Politics: The Internet and the Political Process." The Information Society 18:311--331.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Ainslie, George. 2001. Breakdown of Will. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Appadurai, Arjun. 2004. The capacity to aspire: Culture and the terms of recognition. In Culture and public action, edited by Vijayendra Rao and Michael Walton. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker, Samantha, Michael D. Crandall, Karen E. Fisher, Bo Kinney, Carol Landry, and Anita Rocha. (2010). Opportunity for All: How the American Public Benefits from Internet Access at U.S. Libraries. (IMLS-2010-RES-01). Institute of Museum and Library Services. Washington, D.C.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Best, Michael L. (2004) Can the Internet be a Human Right? Human Rights & Human Welfare, Vol. 4. University of Denver.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Bourges-Waldegg, P., & Scrivener, S. A. R. (2000). Applying and Testing and Approach to Design for Culturally Diverse User Groups. Interacting with Computers, 13(2), 111--126.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Brewer, E., Demmer, M., Du, B., Ho, M., Kam, M., Nedevschi, S., Pal, J., Patra, R., Surana, S., and Fall, K. 2005. The Case for Technology in Developing Regions. Computer 38, 6 (Jun. 2005), 25--38. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Bridges.org. (online, as of 2008) Real Access / Real Impact criteria. http://www.bridges.org/Real_Access.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Burrell J., (2010): Evaluating Shared Access: Social equality and the circulation of mobile phones in rural Uganda, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 15; pp 230--250.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Cairncross, Frances. (1997) The Death of Distance: How the Communications Revolution Will Change Our Lives. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Corbett, Sara. (2008) Can the Cellphone Help End Global Poverty? The New York Times. April 13, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Dearden, A. (2008). User-Centered Design Considered Harmful. Infomation Technologies and International Development, 4(3). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Dhawan, Vivek (2004). Critical Success Factors for Rural ICT Projects in India. Masters Thesis, IIT-Bombay.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Diga, K. (2007) Mobile Cell Phones and Poverty Reduction: Technology Spending Patterns and Poverty Level Change among Households in Uganda. Masters Thesis. University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Donaldson, Krista. 2009. "The Future of Design for Development," Information Technologies and International Development 5, 4 (Winter 2009), pp. 97--100.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Friedman, E. (2009) Computer-assisted medical diagnosis for rural sub-Saharan Africa. IEEE Technology and Society, 23(3):18--28.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Garrido, M., Coward, C., Gordon, A. (2007). ICT Training for Disadvantaged Populations: The Importance of Tailoring to Local Context. Research Working Paper Series. Center for Internet & Society, University of WashingtonGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Heeks, R. (1999) Information and communication technologies, poverty and development. Institute for Development Policy and Management.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Heeks, R. 2002. "Information Systems and Developing Countries: Failure, Success, and Local Improvisations." The Information Society 18, 2 (2002): 101--112.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Heeks, R. (2003) Most e-government for Development projects Fail: How can risks be reduced? Institute for Development Policy and Management Working paper no. 14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Hosman, L., and Fife, E. (2008) Improving the prospects for sustainable ICT projects in the developing world. International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics, 4(1), 51--69.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. International Telecommunication Union. (2010) World Telecommunication/ICT Development Report 2010: Monitoring the WSIS Targets.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Jensen, R. and E. Oster (2007) The Power of TV: Cable Television and Women's Status in India, NBER Working Paper 13305.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Jensen, R. (2007) The Digital Provide: Information (Technology), Market Performance, and Welfare in the South Indian Fisheries Sector. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 879--924.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Johnson, Kirk. 2001. Media and Social Change: the Modernizing Influences of Television in Rural India," Media, Culture and Society, 2001, 23(2):147--169.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnson, Steve. 2009. "How Twitter will change the way we live." Time Magazine, June 5, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Joshi, Deep. 2001. Removing Poverty: Role of HR and Pos. IFMR Seminar.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Jhunjhunwala, A., A. Ramachandran, and A. Bandyopadhyay. (2004) "n-Logue: the story of a rural service provider in India", Journal of Community Informatics, 1:1(30--38).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Kiri, K & Menon, D. (2006). For Profit Rural Kiosks in India: Achievements and Challenges, Information for Development, 4(6), 14--16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Kuriyan, R., I. Ray, K. Toyama. (2008). 'Information and communication technologies for development: The bottom of the pyramid model in practice.' The Information Society, 24: 93--104. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Lancaster, John. 2003. Village Kiosks Bridge India's Digital Divide. The Washington Post. Oct. 12, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Laumann, Edward O., and Knoke, David. 1989. Policy networks of the organizational state: Collective action in the national energy and health domains. In Networks of power: Organizational actors at the national, corporate, and community levels, eds. R. Perrucci and H. R. Potter, pp. 17--55. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. MacKinnon, R. and E. Morozov. 2009. Firewalls to Freedom. Project Syndicate. Feb. 24, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Negroponte, Nicholas. n.d. Frequently Asked Questions. One Laptop Per Child website.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Norris, Pippa. 1999. Who surfs? New technology, old voters and virtual democracy. In Democracy.com? Governance in a networked world, eds. E. C. Kamarck and J. S. Nye, Jr., pp. 71--94. Hollis, NH: Hollis.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Nunberg, G. 2000. Will the Internet speak English? The American Prospect.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Population Media Center. Sabido Methodology -- Background. http://www.populationmedia.org/what/sabido-method/, retrieved Aug. 30, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Rangaswamy, N. & Toyama, K. (2005). "Sociology of ICT: The Myth of the Hibernating Village." Proc. 11th Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, July 2005, Las Vegas.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Ratan, A., Satpathy, S., Zia, L., Toyama, K., Blagsvedt, S., Pawar, U., & Subramaniam, T. (2009). Kelsa+: Digital Literacy for Low-income Workers. IEEE/ACM Int'l Conf. on Information and Communication Technologies for Development. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Roman, R. and Colle, R. 2002. Themes and Issues in Telecentre Sustainability. Institute for Development Policy and Management Working paper no. 10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Ross, Will. 2010. Kenyan farmer lauds internet as saviour of potato crop. BBC News. Mar. 17, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Schramm, Wilbur. 1964. Mass Media and National Development: The Role of Information in Developing Countries. Stanford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Sey, A. (2008). Public Access to ICTs: A Review of the Literature. Research Working Paper Series. Center for Information & Society, University of Washington.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Smyth, Thomas N., Kumar, S., Medhi, I., Toyama, K. (2010) Where There's a Will There's a Way: Mobile Media Sharing in Urban India. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI '10. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Surana, S., R. Patra, S. Nedevschi, E. Brewer. (2008) Depolying a rural wireless telemedicine system: experiences in sustainability. IEEE Computer, pp. 48--56, June, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Swindell, J. 2006. The Village Knowledge Centres of Pondicherry. In Leal W. (ed) 2006 Innovation, Education and Communication for Sustainable Development. Peter Lang: Frankfurt.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Tichenor, P. J., G. A. Donohue, C. N. Olien. (1970) Mass Media Flow and Differential Growth in Knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly 34(2):159--170.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Toyama, K. (2010) Can Technology End Poverty? The Boston Review 35(6).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Toyama, K. and K. Keniston (2008) Telecentre debates. Telecentre Magazine, March 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Toyama, K., K Kiri, D Menon, J Pal, S Sethi, and J Srinivasan. 2005. PC Kiosk Trends in Rural India. Paper read at Policy Options and Models for Bridging Digital Divides, at Tampere, Finland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Vander Ark, Tom. 2009. "How Social Networking Will Transform Learning." The Huffington Post, Nov. 7, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Waldman, Amy. 2004. Indian Soybean Farmers Join the Global Village. New York Times. Jan. 1, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Warschauer, M. (2003). The allures and illusions of modernity: Technology and educational reform in Egypt. Educational Policy Analysis Archives 11(38).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Warschauer, Mark. (2003). Demystifying the digital divide. Scientific American, 289, p. 42--47.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. Warschauer, M., Knobel, M., & Slone, M. (2004). Technology and equity in schooling: Deconstructing the digital divide. Educational Policy 18(4), p. 562--588.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. Warschauer, M. 2006. Laptops and Literacy: Learning in the Wireless Classroom. Teachers College Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Winschiers, Heike. 2007. A cultural appropriation of Usability Engineering and Participatory Design practices - A Namibian Experience-, in Workshop on User Centered Design and International Development.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Technology as amplifier in international development

    Recommendations

    Reviews

    Alexei Botchkarev

    Will technology-specifically, information and communication technology (ICT)-make the world a better place__?__ This question is relevant to not only social and technology researchers, but to any curious mind. Toyama approaches this question as it relates to international information and communication technologies for development (ICT4D) projects, where the situation is complicated by serious social problems such as poverty. The paper promotes the model of technology as an amplifier, which holds that a given technology may have either positive or negative impacts depending on the underlying human intent (for example, government corruption) and capacity (for example, low rates of education). Technology is just an amplification tool that "cannot substitute for human intent or capacity where it is lacking." Toyama identifies three mechanisms of amplification: differential access (technology is more accessible to the rich), differential capacity (technology will provide more benefits to those with more education and better social skills), and differential motivation (underprivileged populations tend to use the Internet more for entertainment than education). All of these mechanisms contribute to widening the digital gap between the poor and rich. Thus, "technology tends to amplify existing inequalities." The three mechanisms are considered in relation to two types of historical cases of ICT4D projects: telecenters (Internet cafes in rural areas) and television. Toyama's hypotheses are based on general observations and are not supported by deeper qualitative or quantitative assessments. His point-that it would be nice if technology did as much or more for the poor, undereducated, and powerless as it does for the rich, well educated, and mighty-is idealistic or at least arguable. A nonacademic version of the paper is available [1]. Readers who are interested in the impact of technology can find additional information on the subject [2,3]. Online Computing Reviews Service

    Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

    Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      iConference '11: Proceedings of the 2011 iConference
      February 2011
      858 pages
      ISBN:9781450301213
      DOI:10.1145/1940761

      Copyright © 2011 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 8 February 2011

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader