Thanks for the post Deepti. I think the last line summarizes your argument:
"All one is saying that every development dollar spent on 'technology for development' is better spent on 'people for development'." 1) In 99% of "development/aid" situations, I agree. 2) Its usually not an either/or. One can (and often does) spend money on both people and systems/process (that technology enables). As Kentaro alludes, most successful (ICTD) projects do exactly that. And the fact that public resource allocation is inefficient (and moreso in "development/aid") is a systemic political problem, and not a problem of technology. 3) If his is really a policy argument (as opposed to research), then thats fine - he should take it up w/ the Kapil Sibals of the world. Budgeting is a complicated political process, and policy makers can use all the good advice they can get. On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Deepti Chittamuru <deepti at ischool.berkeley.edu> wrote: > 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 >> > >
