In London earlier today I caught a moment with 
Prof Tim Unwin prior to a speech he was giving at a reception to celebrate 50 years of Commonwealth Scholarships at Marlborough House in London attended by Ministers, High Commissioners and the Commonwealth Secretary General.
He will be speaking with our class (and any guests who would like to join) on Wednesday, April 29th 14:00-16:00 (London time).
Prof. Unwin recently returned from presenting at the ICTD conference in Doha, which he blogged some of his thoughts on. He has established a Center in ICT4D at the University of Royal Holloway, London, is also Chair of the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission. In late May he will be presenting a keynote at eLearning Africa, based on his recent paper “The Richness of Africa” (which you can read by clicking here).
Watch this clip for how he would like us to prepare:
Earlier in our conversation Prof Unwin said his personal mission – even what he wants to dedicate the rest of his life – is to “create spaces where the highest quality research can be conducted which makes a positive impact in the lives of the poorest and most marginalized people.”
This is a great chance to ask him anything.
He already knows that our goal as a team of colleagues is to answer some of the questions in ICT4D better than anyone has yet.
What are some questions you would like to ask him? (feel free to post here)
Awesome video!!
Well I have many questions to asks…really many!
however it would be interesting to hear more on the really visionary idea mentioned:“…create spaces where the highest quality research can be conducted which makes a positive impact in the lives of the poorest and most marginalized people…”
– How does Tim perceive this “space”?
– Is it possible that this could be a “virtual”(on-line) research space?
– How can we help toward the accomplishment of this visionary idea?
Cheers,
Vasilis
The video helps set the stage nicely for the subsequent discussion that we will have. Some things come to mind about how we are going to do this, but I will sort those out with clint in an email.
Perhaps one of the things that this course has helped make me acutely aware of, is the breakdown in the system of how people with the right intentions in the “developed” world are trying to help those in the “rest” (to borrow some of Easterly’s terms for lack of better ones) to no avail. I used to see issues from one perspective only, that of the “rest” looking out at the “developed”. Having appreciated the challenges and the good will on the other side, I have began to wonder what “small things” can different people in the “rest” do to help make the system start to work a little better. This is something that I would like Tim to address briefly given his experiences traversing both sides of the coin.
I like the missionary attitude of Tim, using ICT to help the poor and marginalized. Problem I see is that there are some many ways to help them that it is hard to pick one. I have a dilemma between direct and indirect ways to help them. Do we give a computer to that poor kid, or will it be better at office center, where the “boss” can take informed decisions? Ideally, no compromises should be taken; however, I’d like to hear how Tim’s is approaching this issue.
I haven’t finished reading the book, not even the first part, but browsing through it I think some case studies may need some editing.
I know the aim of this course is how information and communication technology ICT can be use to help the poor and marginalized communities.
Information and communication technology ICT is a technology that can alleviate or fight against poverty, disease, hunger, illiteracy and environmental degradation among other when implemented in a community.
But how can this technology be effectively implemented when the leaders leading those communities are corrupt/dubious and have wrong mindset about the future outcome of the Information and communication technology?
How can this technology be implemented when thieves do not allow these communities to be electrified by stealing all installed electrical equipments?
How can this technology be implemented when virtually every people living in those communities are illiterates due lack of primary and secondary schools in the communities?
How can the people use the technology when above 80% of the people cannot read and write if the implementation of the Information and communication technology was successful in the community?
I think that Digital Library should be installed in very poor and marginalize communities no matter what it cost by the Government or industries operating in those communities as a part of their social responsibilities as the first step to ICT development with the help of Very Small Aperture Terminal VSAT. And experts should be deployed to train the people on how to use the digital library to source for digital information. The problem here is that how can experts train people that can not even read and write. This automatically draws back to establishment of basic education with information and communication technology facilities in the communities with teachers that are information and communication technology ICT literate as the first step to introducing information and communication technology ICT in the communities.
Sir, I think that successful implementation of information and communication technology ICT in poor and marginalized communities, especially in some part of Africa, is difficult due factors which might be beyond human comprehension.
Dear Tim,
Post-WSIS we have seen that traditional donor agencies (DFID, Sida, Norad, Cida, SDC to mention a few) no longer prioritise ICT4D, their special units are phased out or shut down. Why is this?
Is it that they believe it is up to market forces to bring access and content to all, is it that they have not been able to show impact and results, is it not sexy any more or what do you think is the reason?
Best regards from Uganda,
Johan
Three detached things that Tim said that made me think a bit extra:
1) We constantly have to remind ourselves that ICT4D is mainly about empowering the poorest ones, the ones at the bottom of the pyramid, the ones that the market and private sector have no bigger interest in. Even when based right in “the field” it is easy to forget this fact.
2) That ICT really have the potential to transform traditional power structures (in both ways). Please see this conference report on this topic: http://www.csduppsala.uu.se/dokument/Rapport31.pdf
3) And when Tim talked about pilots and scalability the sound was either off or delayed but I think he said something like “many pilots are doomed” and asking the question “how to go to scale” is actually wrong? Please fill in on this topic, I really want to know what Tim said and to hear your thoughts about it.
/Johan
Perhaps my biggest takeaway from Tim’s session was the fact we are not going to eliminate poverty by just throwing more resources at it. He does not seem to buy into the notion of enhancing economic development as an avenue to reducing poverty.
Another aspect that the “parallel” skype chat touched on is the notion that many of the challenges that we perceive in the developing world e.g. corruption actually exist developed world, except in other different forms. For me the take-away here is that some of these challenges should not be used as excuses for failing to do the things we need to do to help ourselves, nor should we feel ashamed of engaging with the developed world on equal terms as equal partners.
I must admit that I did not quite get the difference between ICTD vs ICT4D, and hopefully this is something that we can revisit in some class discussion. What is the difference between the two? And why is there even a debate about them? As Johan noted in a side-chat, is this an indication of our failures as practitioners?
Otherwise I had never heard about monitter.com, but have visited since and its cool, especially if you are into social media.
Some of the things that got into my mind are:
-there are loads of great ideas but they not necessary encounter the true needs of the people that they are targeted to. Each country has different needs, culture and environment so the solutions need to be applied accordingly. We also should learn more to listen.
-there is no need to form a ICT4D as a discipline and decide what fits in it and what does not. In fact, thinking out of the box may bring outstanding results
-infrastructure is extremely important. If the electricity is brought to more homes in Africa, then ICT has much more chances to reduce poverty. Again, we should focus on the needs of the poorest.
-don’t read a book but go for a walk 😀
-we can make a difference. dare to dream.
Does anyone have the skype chat log to post it in the forum?
Thanks Tim for the great session and Clint for making it possible.
I had these which raked my mind:
I learnt alot and one thing i obviously observed and have had experience is the narrow minded focus from Leaders on how they bring up a plan of development of a particular section of the community instead of a plan for the whole country’s developemnt;Tim touched on that.
Like Ali,i still did not understand the difference between ICTD and ICT4D,more on strategies and kitty.I heard from Tim that the branchless banking gave rise to ICT4D?
Lastly,are we in order to deliver the millenium goals,work collaboratively with the donors or should the donors provide the financial support and let the benefactors work on their own?
This especially on long term strategies of elevating a country’s development and past-record performance!
Johan: on scaling pilots –
http://unwin.wordpress.com/2009/04/27/reflections-on-ict4d-the-british-council-manchester/
I guess what I just wrote on the course forum (elgg) touches on some arguments in favor of Unwin’s point. In short: If it’s meant to be possible to make a project national, then it needs to tackle the institutional part from the beginning. Which is likely to mean(?): problems aren’t necessarily, even mostly, technical and/or economic to begin with. What do others here think?
Ali: From the class I didn’t capture the difference between ICTD/ICT4D either. But I think I gathered from the book that the difference is historial – who initiated the usage. The blog above says the “4” is the difference. ICTD would maybe be more geared towards ICT AS development – ICT in developing countries. ICT4D would be aiming towards ‘development’ in other dimensions of human life THROUGH ICT4D?
I think Monika is up to something also above: ICT4D is more loosely defined and more multidisciplinary than ICTD. Much work for a single “4”! 🙂
There were many great ideas in the very special session of prof. Tim Unwin. I am interested in some aspects which has been discussed in the meeting.
– Infrastructure is a very important factor for ICT4D, especially electricity and digital connection. Indeed, without the basic infrastructure we can’t do any ICT for development. This factor is also mentioned at the link posted by Soren above.
– Establishing a virtual communities where high quality researchers or enthusiasm persons can come together and share ideas, knowledge and innovations for ICT4D.
– I am strongly agree with starting from the small-scale pilot projects (read at the above like posted from Soren). In my opinion, if these projects are successful then we can expand them very easily.
– Here is my personal opinion for this course ICT4D (maybe it’s wrong or right :), please give me comments ). Since this course is about ICT4D so, I think, we should concentrate more about how can we utilize and use ICT for development in poor and marginalized communities in stead of mention too much about other “huge” things which are beyond our hands such as the corruption, political issues, government management… For instance, I am very interested in the #3 at the above link (Reflections on ICT4D @ The British Council, Manchester). At this link, the TIER, Radio and mobile technologies are mentioned as huge opportunities for development for the poor. Therefore, in this course I think we should come up with some kinds of questions like how can we make such innovations (e.g. TIER)? or how can we develop mobile applications or contents for the poor?… Maybe, I am technical person so my view is just focusing on technical issues :).
Cheers,
I agree with Thai Bui about infrastructure which is a very important factor for ICT4D. first of all we have to prioritize this infrastructures in developing country after that we can make some soft developing project like starting from the small-scale projects as a pilot.
It was intersting for me when Tim told us go for a walk and attention to dreams
I’m completely agree with this part of Tim discussion which means ICT4D is not very complex phenomenon 🙂
It’s been a pleasure to listen to Tim. Plenty of experience to draw upon. It is interesting to see that Tim and Easterly agree in that current approach to development is not working, i.e., rubbish. However, they disagree in the solution. Tim is still believing in thinking big, in bringing a change to the developing countries by means of big plans. Easterly has on the other side rejected that idea and claiming we should go humble and just try to empower searchers.
One of the shocking ideas that he proposed is that it is actually morally better to act at home, e.g., be becoming an activist, rather than trying to change a remote country. It is due to the acts of the West that Rest is in the state they are in. We should make our governments morally accountable of their acts affecting other countries. It is because we dump commodity prices, sell weapons, have economic interests,… that the money we pour in the Rest go to waste. On the other hand, if we follow this advice, how could we afford the latest iPod?
Hi Tim
Like everyone I am so pleased to have such a wonderful time with you.The things that really attracted mine mind during the session was the fact that you said we cannot reduce poverty by just throwing resources over it. Well it was one of those things that always make me thing on what actually is the weapon to destroy the disease called poverty. Like Robert next thing what I loved to hear from you was not to read infact go for a walk wow for a lazy bone like me it was encouraging: 🙂 Other then those facts there were lots other interesting things that Tim did during the meeting. Also some facts about the donor agencies including the so called developed countries and their vision towards the developing countries. I think Tim was right to say that they should focus on how to develop the country as a whole rather then focusing on a particular community of that country.