Colleagues: In previous posts Cornelio Hopmann has placed a heavy emphasis on the need for before-after or target-control group evaluations and analysis when designing interventions using ICTs. When we are talking about the rural poor, I am wondering if there are limits to our ability to make such assessments sufficiently predictive to be useful in multiple venues.
The reason is that even (and perhaps especially) in "poor" villages (however defined) the economic-socio-cultural milieu is, surprisingly, extremely complex and dynamic. So the best we can do using conventional methods is to take uncertain snapshots at a point in time which may not be particularly valid. Given that the ICT "knife" (or any technology) cuts both ways (it is both a creator and destroyer of values and norms), perhaps it is not so surprising that sometimes ICT is the most "cost-effective" solution and other times it is not, as Cornelio himself reports. Add the usual socio-political manifestation of the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle" where the act of observation itself changes what is being observed and a fair question is, "what have we learned that is truly useful?" If uncertainty is an inherent feature, what is the alternative? I recall that nearly thirty years ago when I was involved in an academic competition involving renewable energy projects, an engineering professor strongly suggested that instead of analyzing and optimizing sub-systems individually, that we simply sequentially change input variables (such as the average tilt over time of a solar collector facing the sun) for the entire system taken as a whole to see what happens to the output. In others words, treat the entire system as a "black box" without worrying much about what was happening between and among the various subsystems inside the box. At the time, this approach created such an epiphany for many in his audience that he was bombarded with requests for copies of his presentation which I have kept to this day. What the professor described, without access to the lexicon we have available today, was a practical way to deal with a "complex system." Fast forward about twenty-five years to the advent of the concept of a "development dynamic" described in the Digital Opportunity Initiative <http://www.opt-init.org/>. This "new paradigm" was based in part on the recognition that both the new network dynamics made possible by ICTs as well as development dynamics were complex and could only ever be partially understood. So the emphasis was placed instead on exploring a "strategic framework to guide action." The field of action for the DOI was at the national level, but I think the same principles could be applied at local levels as well. If we were to do this, we would more willing to try different approaches (obviously informed by past experience, knowledge, and context) and to allow those to be "tweaked" until we and our partners get it right for that particular milieu, ie, vary the inputs (eg, more community discussions which could lead to more computers in schools available for use in the evening), one by one, to obtain the desired output (eg., greater adult computer literacy). Another situation/venue would likely require a different mix to achieve the same result, not to mention a different result. But we would cease to be so preoccupied with applying the ultimate in evaluation methodologies because we would realize that prediction and description are only partially achievable at best anyway. So we would take risks and focus on action. Not all risk-taking efforts would lead to desired results, but we would be "doing something" instead of holding endless meetings and intellectual discussions that do nothing except set the stage for the next round of meetings and intellectual discussions. I do not think we have this luxury anymore. We are losing the race toward achieving the MDGs. Poverty is rampant and growing. Everywhere the "have-nots" are increasing along with the attendant despair and violence. Quality of life disparities between "rich" and "poor" are greater than ever before. Our exquisitely planned and intricately analyzed interventions are not working. The Undecidability Theorem in mathematics suggests that the fastest way to test software code is just to run it and see what happens. It is also impossible to wring out uncertainties in applying technology without also eliminating creativity in a development context. Perhaps the corollary in the development game given the present exigencies is to "just do it." There is a wonderful graphic at <http://www.chaordic.org/commons/graphics.htm> illustrating that "living systems thrive in a narrow band between chaos and order." I think that development also happens in this "narrow band." Unless we are willing to spend the energy and take the risk of using technology to find this region wherever we are working (and doing it over and over again, however imperfectly), ICTs as significant poverty-busting tools are a lost cause. Gary Garriott (Former) E-governance Adviser LAC SURF - UNDP PO Box 6314, Zone 5 Panama City, Panama Tel. 507 265 8168/8153 Fax 507 265 8445 New email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------ This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by USAID's dot-ORG Cooperative Agreement with AED, in partnership with World Resources Institute's Digital Dividend Project, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org and http://www.digitaldividend.org provide more information. To post a message, send it to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. In the 1st line of the message type: subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: <http://www.dot-com-alliance.org/archive.html>
