I can see why Tap would argue that Clay Shirky's piece is a refutation of Kentaro's claim. But I don't think Kentaro's claim is dislodged by Shirky. Shirky says he does not seem to understand why we should be careful when attributing agency to social media/communication tools while everywhere else it is attributed routinely and everyone understands perfectly well what it means. I don't think Kentaro would argue that a quirk of the English language is the danger. He would rather argue that repeated use of such language if and when it leads to mistaken attribution of agency would be dangerous. His argument presumes that such mistaken attribution of agency is occurring in the context of ICTs especially in the development and public policy sectors.
I had a version of this conversation recently with Kentaro and here is what I believe he would say. Again, this is my understanding of what he would say, it does not necessarily capture his beliefs very accurately. I write it as a conversation simply because that is how I remember it in my own head. A lot of the examples below are drawn from my understanding so if they are wrong then it is my fault and not his. :) *Kentaro: *While it is perfectly fine for you to use such terms, it is the belief that these tools are somehow causing good that is distracting. It does not matter if the lay man believes this but it starts getting dangerous when resource allocating public policymakers or folks in the development sector start believing that offering a laptop/mobile phone based game to a teacher-less child or to a teacher who does not know how or even what to teach will be more effective than investing the same resources into training teachers in terms of increase in literacy in a community. In a war after all it isn't the weapons but the strategy (how you use them) that wins the war. Every single general in history will attest to that. There have been instances when an enemy with superior weaponry (technology) has been defeated by people with better strategy and more will power even if the latter had less advanced war technology. If you have to choose between training soldiers and building out your technological prowess, then choose to focus on your soldiers and on war strategists, etc., Technology after all is only meant to enhance a soldier's ability to fight the war, if he is himself not effective what will a super high-powered gun do for him? except probably lead him to shoot himself in the foot... But the concern is that what the generals already know, the policymakers and people in the development sector might not remember. When teacher's do not know the absolute basics that they ned to teach, do not have the motivation or self-efficacy to turn up everyday in a class which is nearly empty to teach children who are hungry; If mothers are too unwell to give birth to healthy children and the children grow up to be malnourished, then it might be a better idea to focus every resource you have on building self-efficacy and motivation amongst the teachers and to offer them teaching skills, instead of overhead LED projectors; it might be better to offer community health workers motivational and self-efficacy interventions and skills to educate women and their families rather than to offer them mobile phones and cool apps. It does not mean the cool apps don't help or that the overhead LED projectors don't help. They do, but are less value for the resources spent on them. Furthermore if you did manage to improve the self-efficacy levels of a teacher or the educational/motivational skills of a community health worker then he or she would find a way to get the LED projector or the cool mobile phone app. Technology isn't the hardest part to get while doing development work but the skills and knowledge necessary to do the work are difficult to acquire. So if you have to choose between putting in a million dollars into either buying mobile phones for community health workers or into training them to enhance their persuasion skills or their knowledge of the healthcare issues and solutions, then choose the latter. Only if you believe that you already have an effective force of community health workers/teachers/ human rights activists/whoever is helping should you be spending the money on accessorizing them so to speak with technology. Technology can help you do whatever you do more effectively, powerfully, efficiently, etc... whether it be good or evil. It is a magnifier of human intent and capacity. But you have to know what to do for technology to help you do it better, more widely, more powerfully, etc... Twitter cannot help you spread the message far and wide and effectively mobilize people if you do not know what message you have to send to mobilize people. This argument is about whether it is more important to teach people what to do or improve people's ability to do it. The latter (improving how they do it) presumes the existence of knowledge of the former (what to do and how to do it)... mistakenly so in my opinion. As of today I would argue that the biggest challenge in the development sector is helping people - teachers, community health workers, etc., - figure out what to do and how to do it. Only after achieving at least a minimum level of knowledge, self-efficacy and motivation does it make sense to explore how we can help them do it better. Some people seem to argue that simply having access to the right technology will help people figure out what to do or how to do it and that is the main issue of contention here. *Technology is about how to do it better, not about what to do or how to do it. *So I argue that we (folks in the development and public policy sector) should first focus on teaching what to do and how to do it before we begin investing resources in figuring out how to do it better. *Deepti: *Yeah but if I do not have the money to build a full force of effective workers (in whatever development area) would we not be better off at least "magnifying the intent" of the few good teachers, community health workers, etc. that we have? After all building effective human abilities even in a fraction of the workforce in development is so much more expensive and slower than being able to magnify the abilities of those who are already effective. Wouldn't the latter be more value for each dollar spent? Also wouldn't the very deployment of technology be an intervention in increasing skills, knowledge and self-efficacy of the community health workers/teachers/whoever else even amongst those (admittedly the majority) community health workers/teachers/whoever else who aren't very knowledgeable, self-efficacious or motivated? Even for those who aren't very great teachers/community health workers, etc., wouldn't simply having access to technology increase - if only slightly - their levels of knowledge, self-efficacy and motivation? *Kentaro: *Just access to technology does not reliably lead to an increase in knowledge, self-efficacy and motivation and one cannot depend on the hope that technology might have such a side-effect when one is spending a billion dollars developing and deploying it. Also if there is such an increase in knowledge, motivation and self-efficacy, it is only marginal. Why spend so many resources to only have a marginal impact on vital issues. This is like investing resources into inventing super-efficient surgical tools that facilitate quicker healing times for patients undergoing brain surgery when there aren't enough good surgeons to go around. Agreed a patient bleeding into his brain will benefit from shorter recovery periods after brain surgery but he will benefit even more from having access to a superb brain surgeon. So if you do not have resources to do both (train surgeons to treat the bleeding brain and invent great surgical tools), if it is a question of whether to allocate resources here or there, then you are better off focusing on the creation of better surgeons than the invention of better tools. Also the market does have a way of finding out what works best and eventually developing whatever is most useful. We do not really have to spend public or development dollars on building better mobile phone interfaces or apps. We are better off spending public money on building human capital. Furthermore if the human capital is knowledgeable enough, self-efficacious and motivated enough they will identify and obtain the technological tools they need, whereas going the other way -from access to technological tools building knowledge and self-efficacy- round is much harder. As to your first point about whether magnifying the intent of a few good teachers isn't as good a way to spend resources as increasing the number of good teachers, especially since the former is easier and less expensive to do than the latter - No it isn't. For such a strategy to be successful in improving the over all levels of education, health, etc., you still need a minimum number (critical mass?) of good teachers, community health workers, etc... We do not have even that minimum number of great teachers, community health workers, etc., and hence every "development" dollar that you spend on designing or deploying a "useful" mobile phone app is a dollar that you are taking away from doing more useful things like building better human resources. Nobody is saying that technology does not help, the argument is about how much it helps. Does it help enough to justify spending on technology "instead" of spending on people doing development work? Is it so effective that it can do as much as a great teacher or a very effective community health worker? If not then one is better off spending on improving teachers, community health workers, etc... at this stage. All one is saying that every development dollar spent on *'technology for development'* is better spent on *'people for development'*. -d On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Tapan Parikh <tapan at cs.washington.edu>wrote: > This could be a very entertaining conversation if I wanted to play devils > advocate for a bit, but unfortunately deadlines loom. > > So Ill say yes, you are absolutely right, but your argument could be used > just as well as a defense for the hypothetical folks that Kentaro appears to > be railing against. I dont think anyone sensible (that I've run across > anyway) has argued that technology is instrumental for development to occur, > at least on an individual basis. > > The economists have looked for causality at the macro-level, but recent > events have led many prominent economists (Keynesians, granted) to suggest > that large parts of that sub-discipline are irrelevant to the real world. > > Anyway, Ill close by saying that whether words determine reality, and > whether modern classical macro-economics is completely bogus, are both > hugely interesting unsolved questions that I dont have time to engage with > today, or before tenure for that matter. ;) > > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Sunil Garg <sunilgarg at gatech.edu> wrote: > >> Where is the refutation? >> >> Just because the English language wants us to frame things in a certain >> way doesn't mean that's the reality. >> >> -Sunil >> >> >> On Oct 17, 2011, at 2:34 PM, Tapan Parikh wrote: >> >> Clay Shirky rebuts Toyama much better then I ever could: >> >> http://crookedtimber.org/2011/10/10/guestpost-communications-tools-agency-and-anxiety/ >> >> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Tapan Parikh <tapan at >> cs.washington.edu>wrote: >> >>> Ive never understood Kentaros point here, or at least why its delivered >>> with such pessimism. >>> >>> Its strictly a glass half-full, half-empty kind of argument. Of course >>> technology does not achieve its effect in isolation. Of course you need all >>> the rest of the things Kentaro mentions. But an "amplifier of your intent" >>> still sounds pretty awesome to me. This is what Steve Jobs was trying to do >>> for us, and what we are trying (successfully or unsuccessfully) to achieve >>> for the poor and marginalized through ICT4D. Im not saying that computers >>> are the best or most appropriate technology, but the potential is there, and >>> that is why we are working to achieve it, and why it is still research. >>> >>> I find Joyojeet's critique much more interesting. Are computers truly >>> amplifiers, or are they strictly aspirational? Said another way, is high >>> technology perceived as an end in and of itself, or do we understand its >>> true machinations*, and use them for some other higher purpose - the highest >>> being to learn, and through the process become better people, or a better >>> society. I am sure everyone who has worked in ICTD has directly observed >>> "gadget lust" in our partners, users, and without doubt, in ourselves. >>> >>> Summarizing my point, the important question is "are u the one riding the >>> horse, or is the horse riding you?". The jury is still out on this for >>> ICT4D, as it is for the rest of the World, IMHO. >>> >>> * For the philosophy and German buffs, see Heidegger's "The Question >>> Concerning Technology". >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Yaw Anokwa <yanokwa at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> rahul, >>>> >>>> i would encourage you to check out >>>> http://www.kentarotoyama.org/research. i think his work on >>>> technology as an amplifier and the ten myths of ict4d will be quite >>>> insightful. >>>> >>>> yaw >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 18:16, Rahul Banerjee < >>>> banerjee at cs.washington.edu> wrote: >>>> > Yes, I agree that this is simply another hardware platform on which >>>> > people can build stuff. It is a solution enabler, not a solution in >>>> > itself. However, this price point means that one can deploy solutions >>>> > for cheaper than with existing hardware. >>>> > >>>> > I think we all agree that *solutions* built on top of hardware >>>> > platforms change people's lives -- cheap hardware simply opens up such >>>> > possibilities to interested parties who want to build solutions, but >>>> > don't have enough money for expensive hardware. >>>> > >>>> > I would like to emphasize this point -- the best ideas can come from >>>> > anywhere. Once you let such a cheap device loose into the wild (so to >>>> > speak), I'm certain that several talented people will come up with >>>> > good ideas and implement them. What remains to be seen is how many of >>>> > those are useful and improve people's lives significantly. >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > Rahul >>>> > >>>> > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Clint Tseng <cxlt at cs.washington.edu> >>>> wrote: >>>> >> Yes, but your argument is centered around how the technology is >>>> better. I >>>> >> don't think I have to point out who we're echoing when we say that >>>> >> technology alone is not enough. We could make the Galaxy S2 or the >>>> iPhone 4 >>>> >> cost $10 and it simply wouldn't make the kind of difference you'd >>>> hope for >>>> >> (eg, much at all). >>>> >> The App Store is not available because you have to pay Google >>>> licensing fees >>>> >> to put it on your device, which would have driven the cost up. >>>> >> Touchscreens are nice, but I don't think any of this will truly >>>> matter for >>>> >> the populations we're talking about until we see voice technology >>>> like Siri >>>> >> develop to the point where you don't need to care that you're talking >>>> to >>>> >> technology. At that point, perhaps it's worth revisiting the >>>> distribution of >>>> >> generic technology to remote regions and untrained users without >>>> caring >>>> >> about what their actual needs are. For now, it's still much better to >>>> >> actually do the footwork to figure out what people need and give them >>>> that >>>> >> than to try to hand out or sell general purpose computing devices and >>>> hope >>>> >> to make a difference. >>>> >> $0.02. >>>> >> -Clint >>>> >> >>>> >> On Thursday, October 6, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Rahul Banerjee wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> Against a cell phone, the tablet's screen is a compelling argument. >>>> >> >>>> >> However, I don't know if really poor people (who are mostly >>>> >> illiterate) would go for a tablet over a *television* -- I've >>>> observed >>>> >> that even people living in illegally constructed shacks next to train >>>> >> tracks always have a DTH antenna dish sticking out from the roof. My >>>> >> belief is that: >>>> >> 1. TV's are dead simple to operate -- turn them on and they work. If >>>> >> you can't navigate your magical tablet's touchscreen, you have a >>>> >> magical paperweight. >>>> >> 2. There's decent infrastructure in place (in India) to get a >>>> >> direct-to-home subscription. I've been to some pretty remote places >>>> in >>>> >> India (places that are accessible only using off-road vehicles and >>>> are >>>> >> completely cut-off for three months during winter) and nearly all >>>> >> these houses had dish antennas. AFAIK, 3G-based data plans aren't >>>> that >>>> >> ubiquitous yet (you could only get them in certain cities in India >>>> >> last time I checked -- about 2 months ago). >>>> >> >>>> >> The battery question is an interesting one -- I read a review which >>>> >> stated that the battery life is two hours. I've observed in urban >>>> >> slums that (illegally) hooking up wires to overhead electricity >>>> supply >>>> >> cables (a dangerous practice, to be sure) is common. I'm not claiming >>>> >> that this is the norm everywhere, but financial pressure often >>>> >> eliminates batteries anyway :) >>>> >> >>>> >> I'm going to keep on harping on the "poor but intelligent/talented >>>> >> student" angle. These are the people who'll benefit the most from >>>> such >>>> >> a device. Imagine being able to read textbooks on this! Btw, I also >>>> >> discovered in the review that the App Store / Marketplace is >>>> disabled, >>>> >> which is *not cool*. Maybe they don't expect the target users to have >>>> >> connectivity, but this severely limits the platform. There are a ton >>>> >> of free apps out there which the users cannot get, and now custom >>>> >> delivery platforms will have to be built for every project (I'm >>>> >> thinking of textbooks, telemedicine, the fieldwork apps like the >>>> >> Verbal Autopsy stuff, etc) >>>> >> >>>> >> I've rambled enough here. My summary would be that this is a giant >>>> >> step forward, but the poorest of the poor (think indigent poverty) >>>> >> won't magically lift themselves out of poverty using this one device. >>>> >> However, it does generate lots of exciting possibilities for >>>> >> "slightly-better-off" segments and it can be an enabling device for >>>> >> several projects on a shoestring budget. >>>> >> >>>> >> -- >>>> >> Rahul >>>> >> >>>> >> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Fritz Meissner < >>>> fritz.meissner at gmail.com> >>>> >> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> Just brainstorming a hypothetically compelling reason: consumption of >>>> >> locally-made movies, which I'm given to understand currently happens >>>> >> wholesale on cellphones in India. Would the move to tablet form, i.e. >>>> bigger >>>> >> screen and (one would hope) better sound, make for a massively >>>> improved >>>> >> experience? >>>> >> The Aakash could be a better investment than a TV / DVD player, given >>>> the >>>> >> greater capacity and reusability of USB or SD cards compared to DVDs. >>>> Of >>>> >> course, the TV has a bigger screen, but it doesn't run on batteries. >>>> How >>>> >> much would a TV cost? >>>> >> >>>> >> Fritz >>>> >> >>>> >> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Jerome White <jerome at cs.caltech.edu> >>>> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> However, there is a "rural/poor" segment that could afford this: >>>> those >>>> >> making between 5 and 10 thousand Rupees a month. In fact it's what >>>> some >>>> >> spend on a mobile phone. However, with the mobile, there is very >>>> compelling >>>> >> reason to make such an investment. A similarly compelling reason, >>>> from their >>>> >> perspective, to own this device isn't clear to me. >>>> >> >>>> >> But, at least we've got another device to help us generate >>>> publications :) >>>> >> >>>> >> jerome >>>> >> >>>> >> On 06-Oct-2011, at 4:11 PM, Fritz Meissner wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> How much is $35 to the poorest of the poor? I recall an economics >>>> study >>>> >> that paid Indian workers the equivalent of a monthly salary, I think >>>> that >>>> >> was 50USD... 35USD is beyond cheap in the West but perhaps still not >>>> >> affordable in that context. >>>> >> >>>> >> OTOH if the tablet is locally made, perhaps just the work that the >>>> >> manufacturer provides will be beneficial. >>>> >> >>>> >> Fritz >>>> >> >>>> >> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 1:32 AM, Joyojeet Pal <joyojeet at gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >> I agree with Yaw on this -- sure, it is great that this technology is >>>> so >>>> >> cheap, and one can argue that similar such efforts have brought up >>>> new >>>> >> technology innovations (Netbook etc) and various other benefits, what >>>> is >>>> >> deeply problematic is the idea that this will solve the issues of >>>> >> development in India, and Indian minister Kapil Sibal's announcing >>>> the >>>> >> project as being some kind of a dig out of exclusion >>>> >> ( >>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/india-announces-35-tablet-computer-to-help-lift-villagers-out-of-poverty/2011/10/05/gIQAPT8PNL_story.html >>>> ) >>>> >> >>>> >> If you look at UNDP's latest HDI report on India, you may find that >>>> >> someone should find this claim at least quixotic, given that the >>>> country >>>> >> ranks 119th in the world for what ranks are worth. India as a state >>>> spends >>>> >> among the lowest on education (3.6%) and healthcare (1.1%) and has an >>>> income >>>> >> inequality problem that is by all measure growing yearly, gender >>>> inequity is >>>> >> 0.748 (on a scale of the 'best' at 0.212 and 'worst' at 0.814). the >>>> average >>>> >> Indian spends 4.4 years in formal schooling.. the list goes on and >>>> on. >>>> >> >>>> >> i'm not saying this is not a significant achievement, my concern is >>>> >> tying this to development in such a way, in fact specifically in the >>>> >> perception that this could be the state's part in providing >>>> development in >>>> >> india. i think it hurts the cause of folks working in this space at >>>> the very >>>> >> least. >>>> >> >>>> >> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Yaw Anokwa <yanokwa at gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >> the hype around this tablet is terrible. >>>> >> >>>> >> i think it's great to have cheaper technology, but android tablets, >>>> >> even cheap $35 android tablets, will not lift villagers out of >>>> >> poverty. i wish it were that easy... >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 15:49, Rahul Banerjee >>>> >> <banerjee at cs.washington.edu> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> Sorry for the spam, but I couldn't resist sharing such wonderful >>>> news: >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/India-announces-35-tablet-computer-for-rural-poor-2203509.php >>>> >> >>>> >> (Actually, the government is subsidising its price (which would be >>>> >> closer to $50), but it's still pretty amazing that something like >>>> this >>>> >> exists at all) >>>> >> >>>> >> -- >>>> >> Rahul >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>> >> change mailing list >>>> >> change at change.washington.edu >>>> >> http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change >>>> >> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>> >> change mailing list >>>> >> change at change.washington.edu >>>> >> http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>> >> change mailing list >>>> >> change at change.washington.edu >>>> >> http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>> >> change mailing list >>>> >> change at change.washington.edu >>>> >> http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>> >> change mailing list >>>> >> change at change.washington.edu >>>> >> http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>> >> change mailing list >>>> >> change at change.washington.edu >>>> >> http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change >>>> >> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>> >> change mailing list >>>> >> change at change.washington.edu >>>> >> http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > change mailing list >>>> > change at change.washington.edu >>>> > http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change >>>> > >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> change mailing list >>>> change at change.washington.edu >>>> http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change >>>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> change mailing list >> change at change.washington.edu >> http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > change mailing list > change at change.washington.edu > http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/private/change/attachments/20111017/a440842b/attachment.html>
