ICT for Development seems to be a broad concept that covers anything that is even remotely connected to technology and projects in the so-called developing countries. Some of my colleagues in Plan have rightly asked: “how would you actually define it?”. Hmm… that’s a good question, indeed. Let’s try it.
ICT4D. Probably best to start from the left in the acronym and move to the right (no politics involved here, though). ICT is a term that often does not outright get an average “development worker” thrilled. He or she is an expert on human rights, education, health or, say, child participation. But rarely on gadgets, cables, operating systems and hacks. “Ah, it’s that complicated geek stuff, not for me” they think and continue working. But let’s look a bit closer. ICT is actually made of Information, Communication and Technology. So, 66% of the concept is something else than Tech. Information and Communication is something that all the development workers, not to mention the “people in the communities”, are very much involved with. I and C are in the core of human life and social change we’d like to see happening. When planning a feasible, sustainable and relevant use of ICTs, the most important part is to get to understand the I and C needs, practises and bottlenecks. Thus, completely without technological knowledge all the people involved (so-called stakeholders) are able to contribute and analyse the flow of I and C in their lives, such as in school governance, e.g. how pupils, parents, teachers, headmaster, education officers etc. (should) communicate and share information. Only after this analysis there comes the question of T. Which kind of technology would suit these I and C needs? Or do we even need the T? Maybe it’s a lack of awareness or trust or equality that’s missing, and not necessarily T?
Ok, let’s assume we have found clear areas where technology could help people with their I and C needs. Now the people who know “what’s out there” with technology, what are solutions available and how to the it work can actually help. Whether it’s FrontlineSMS, Ushahidi, PoiMapper, QuestionBox, mPedigree or something completely different , the T part could be incorporated. And we are much more confident that technology is actually addressing some real needs rather than trying to stick a gadget somewhere it’s really no use – just for the sake of having the T. Obviously it’s even better if the stakeholders themselves have become aware of possible solutions and are actively participating in choosing them.
ICT for D. What’s the “for” and the “D” part then? “For” seems to suggest that ICTs should be serving the development. D for ICT would not sound right – altough this also happens too often. In other words, ICTs should be supporting the goals of development (or certain development project) rather than having a value of its own. It’s an enabler. If, by utilizing ICTs, e.g. the quality of education becomes better, children are more protected from abuse and violence or people get employed, the tool serves the purpose. Otherwise not.
Lastly we come to the D part. Instead of trying to start defining the D by myself (which would be a dubious task…) I’ll just quickly quote a much smarter person:
“”Human development, as an approach, is concerned with what I take to be the basic development idea: namely, advancing the richness of human life, rather than the richness of the economy in which human beings live, which is only a part of it.”
Prof. Amartya Sen, Professor of Economics, Harvard University, Nobel Laureate in Economics, 1998
Would ICT4D be then “this simple”. No, I don’t think so. In each of the letters in the acronym, there are series of points to be considered, some good practices available, lots of caveats and room of innovation. Some of those have been described in the “ICT for Development” guidebook, among many other good sources.
However, ICT is in this post strictly seen as an enabler, a tool for development. But could ICTs be also transformative; even a valid goal of itself? More about that in a later post.
