I’m interested to note that the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) (or at least the Information and Communications Technology for Development—ICT4D—folks at the IDRC) have decided to hitch their wagon, and not incidentally their not inconsiderable resources to the “Open” movement and launch a campaign for an Open ICT4D meme.
The major document in this initiative defines “Openness” and “Open ICT4D” as follows:
…as a way of organizing social activities for development benefits that favour: a) universal over restricted access to communication tools and information; b) universal over restricted participation in informal and formal groups/institutions; and c) collaborative over centralized production of cultural, economic, or other content.
Certainly it is very hard to fault (or even disagree) with any of the above except that this definition and the following paper seem to not understand that lack of access in most developmental contexts isn’t simply a failure of reasonable people to understand that they should proceed in an “open” rather than a “closed/restrictive” fashion. The lack of access in many if not most cases serves the interests of some quite well including many who gain considerable advantage from lack of transparency, restrictions on use of government data, the use of security designations in inappropriate contexts. In these instances a lack of access is most frequently a function of a lack of power in a particular social and economic context and that articulating the good feelings attendant on an “openness” strategy are as unlikely to change those restrictions as were the thinking of good thoughts sufficient to stop the flow of oil from the BP Gulf catastrophe.
The paper further seems to suggest that “open” as in “access” is equivalent to “universal access”. This would appear to be a conceptual mistake since “Open” as a term presents a condition or state of “access” while “Universal” as a term provides a definition of how and by whom this state i.e. “access” may be actualized. In fact, the notion of “universal” here would suggest that efforts have been made to ensure that all (the universe of) those to whom the access is available have the means to obtain such access.
Further to this it should be argued that “open access” is not as the definition implies, the opposite of “closed or restricted access” but rather that “open (or available) access” is the opposite of unavailable access with the unavailability having multiple possible sources including cost, skills and so on. Those authoring the paper don’t seem to have considered that restrictions on access may exist (or that “access” may be unavailable) not because those involved haven’t yet had a chance to listen to the gurus from Harvard and Yale but rather that they may be sitting on the other side of structures of power and control where to attempt to remove or change those restrictions involves conflicts and challenges. Those structures may be invisible to those who benefit from the privileges of status, nationality, occupation or technical skill whether in academe or government; but that they exist is most certainly visible to those who are subject to them and who suffer when they attempt to resist or to insist on things like “openness”.
One of the significant difficulties of a “peer to peer” approach when linked organically to the “openness” standard is that those going into the peer relations have quite significant differences in power and prestige and access to resources. It is very difficult to conceive of a true “peer-to-peer” relationship as enabling or supporting “openness” when there are marked and systematic economic and social differences between the “peers” as for example, is pervasive within developing countries and particularly acute between developed countries and developing countries.
What for example, does a peer-to-peer approach mean when there is widespread illiteracy among much of the population. In what sense can an illiterate person be an information “peer” in influencing the direction of economic or social development; with a literate person particularly one armed with access to computers and the Internet unless there are already in place measures to ensure/enforce structures of decision making which give force and value to the voices and concerns of those without literacy or numeracy skills.
The paper goes on to talk about “universal over restricted participation” and proceeds elsewhere to talk as though “openness” somehow was synonymous with “universal participation”. As I understand the notion of “openness” and the (here) associated concept of “access” these are essentially descriptors of passive relationships or characteristics. I have elsewhere argued that without the more active notions of “effective use” or in this case “effective” participation , the notions of access or participation are little more than surrogates for the status quo since in most instances those currently without access or who are not participating are unlikely to become actively involved in the absence of some intervention in the form of training, facilitation, the making available and visible of specific desirable outcomes and so on.
More specifically the authors of the paper have not addressed the rather fundamental dilemma for their position of how to achieve active participation in an “open” environment in the absence of some sort of direct and effective intervention in support of this. The outcome of the current position has to be questioned from the perspective of—“openness for who”, and under what circumstances—and the answer that comes out based on the current discussion is—“openness” for those already active and participating and little or no change (or positive effect from “openness”) for everyone else.
And under it all there is a fundamental ambiguity around what is meant by “open”. On the one hand it is clear that the paper is referring to “open” as a process—something which can be understood as partial, as distributed along a continuum, as something which is in various stages of realization. On the other hand there is “open” as an objective, an end point, a standard against which to measure other objectives—collaboratively produced content for example.
It is hard, perhaps impossible to disagree with the first—“open” as process, certainly since all the examples chosen are so positive and normatively fetching. It is difficult to argue against an opening up of information to a wider circle of potential users. On the other hand “open” as product or as an end goal is rather less benign—something is either “open” or it is beyond the pale—it is closed, restricted, even unhealthy and unproductive. The first is scalar (more or less “open” i.e. open as in “(more or less) open society”); the second is binary as in “open (or closed) bottle”. It is quite possibly the case that a state of complete “openness” (for data, development processes, access and so on) will as for example is the case with completely “open markets”, lead to more inequality rather than less.
But more significantly than that, an “open process” implies an on-going activity with which a variety of persons, interests, activities can become associated. Something that is “open”, for example an open architecture or open data set, is certainly a good thing as far as it goes. Unfortunately in most instances it doesn’t go very far beyond providing a means for those already enabled as for example, with technology, technology skills, information or data analysis and processing skills to extend their resource base at someone else’s (often the public’s) expense . Again, nothing wrong with that except little or no attention is given (or resources made available or even argued for) to assist those who don’t currently have the means to make effective use of the newly opened or made available resource.
Thus for example, open data clearly is of benefit to those who to this point have been paying for access to the data (the private sector, funded researchers and so on), it is also of benefit to those who have access to or can pay for the skills of those who can select, process and analyse the newly made available data – again the private sector, funded researchers, established not-for-profits, independents with the appropriate skill mix and time on their hands for this type of activity (young, recent graduates, newly unemployed professionals, the technically sophisticated and so on). What about for example, those who may need access to the information the most i.e. those for whom the information might be of life or death circumstance but who lack the resources—the knowledge, skill, trained staff—to make use of those resources in support of their activities. (As evidence of this point the speed with which efforts as for example those of who give voice to those without previous access to the means for recording and projecting there concerns is akin to the absorption of water by previously parched earth.)
Similarly with “Open Development”; clearly the opportunity to participate in development planning, information sharing, operational implementation will be of interest to and benefit for those already possessing the skills, background and time required to recognize this opportunity and to participate in these processes. In most Developing Countries this would include the quite rapidly developing cohort of technologically savvy recent graduates, newly employed tech workers, many elements in the Diaspora community and so on—the “New Middle Class”.
Getting these people involved in development related activities is, one assumes, overall a good thing. However, putting one’s emphasis and resources behind these initiatives without putting commensurate resources to support participation by those most needful of benefiting from such development activities—the rural and urban poor, the landless, the illiterate, women outside the paid workforce, the physically disabled and so on is simply to further empower those already being empowered and to assist them in further distancing themselves from the most needful.
That is, “Open Development” as through for example simply having newly available “access” to information or the opportunity to “participate” does little or nothing for those without the means to make effective and organized use of those opportunities i.e. those who lack the required skills or the means to hire the skills or more profoundly without the background and training to recognize the value that such opportunities and access might provide to them.
The challenge for development is not the challenge of “open” or “closed”—“available” or “unavailable”—rather the challenge is one of ensuring that those who are the “object” of development are also its subjects…
It is hard from this paper to see how a commitment to “open development” or “open ICT4D” is much more than a commitment to further enabling the (already) enabled and empowering the (already) empowered.
Gurstein's Community Informatics 
Pamela McLean
December 1, 2010
Just to flag up agreement with what you are writing.
I especially echo your words:
“Those structures may be invisible to those who benefit from the privileges of status, nationality, occupation or technical skill whether in academe or government; but that they exist is most certainly visible to those who are subject to them and who suffer when they attempt to resist or to insist on things like “openness”.
A thousand times yes. I love how youe exress that.
BTW – It’s part of the reason we set up dadamac – to help people break out of their silos of privilege.
Dadamac – the Internet-enabled alternative to top-down development http://dadamac.posterous.com/dadamac-the-internet-enabled-alternative-to-t
We hope dadamac will help some of those who don’t see the invisible structres to connect with some of those who do,
Matthew Smith
December 6, 2010
Hi Michael –
I enjoyed reading the thoughtful post. I’d like to respond to perhaps clarify the thinking that went into that paper. Many of the critiques (that you and others make) point to what, I think, has been a challenge with conceptual complexity of what we’re trying to explore. In particular, I have learned that engaging with the concept of open/openness is especially problematic in that it already comes with quite a bit of ideological baggage. Indeed, the critiques and comments we have received so far of the Open ICT4D working paper (and a subsequent one Open ICT Ecosystems) tend to reiterate a few common themes, several of which are reflected in your post. And while there are a few caveats in the paper that I think address some of the critiques you make – caveats fail to accurately express the importance, indeed their central importance, to understanding the nature of open development (as we define it). Happily, however, your post provides me with a nice opportunity to address some of these critiques and misunderstandings.
The central critique from the post can be paraphrased roughly as follows: The definition of openness doesn’t capture the understanding of the necessity of the appropriate skills to engage and the underlying structures of power that restrict equal access and participation. As a consequence, the IDRC, or anyone who subscribes to these ideas, will ignore the need to put “commensurate resources to support participation by the most needful of benefiting from such development activities.”
This is a well-founded and important concern – indeed it echoes long-standing critiques of the ICT4D field that it was both techno-centric and apolitical (where’s the “D”?!). As stated above, I think perhaps the greatest weakness of the paper is that it doesn’t place the issue of power as well as the capacities to be able to take advantage of these new ‘open’ processes more prominently in the paper. In a future piece that is currently being authored, we try to give it the position that it deserves.
This is not to say that we weren’t aware of the issue, rather just the opposite. Indeed, the IDRC has a long history of funding researchers who investigate exactly those issues; i.e., how to achieve effective and socially meaningful use of technology by those who are the most marginalized in society, and that includes a deepening of our understanding of the factors that influence such use. So – here’s hoping I can assuage the fear that we are proposing or encouraging an apolitical and rather deterministic approach to development.
Perhaps the best place to start is to identify what has been the most common (mis)interpretation of the concept of open development, and I would posit also underlies the thinking in the post, which can be stated as follows: open development means supporting the implementation of technologies to make more content and activities open to more people. This misunderstands two very important aspects of the argument we make in the paper:
1. Open development is a hypothesis; i.e., the paper argues that we hypothesise that, enabled by ICTs, there are many situations where more open processes and structures can be both constitutive of development (i.e., it is an end in and of itself) as well as can causally bring about positive developmental outcomes. Whether or not this is true, and what these open processes and structures will look like, who they will benefit, etc. is an open question.
2. We are not interested in openness for openness’ sake; we are interested in openness only when and where it leads to development.
The hypothesis of open development starts with the assumption that information networks are broadening (access to and inclusion in), deepening (more information flows, higher quantity and quality of interactions), and increasing in relevance across domains and strata of society. Critically, these networks take on new forms that alter how we (people, groups, governments, etc) mobilize and organize resources (information and people) to achieve desired ends. The current and future benefits that are accrued from these technologies are, probably significantly, shaped by the ongoing decisions that we make in terms of implementations and policy. The IDRC, as an institution that supports research to solve pressing development issues, is interested in supporting research that provides an evidence base upon which this future can be shaped in a more equitable manner; in particular that it includes in a meaningful way the most marginalized populations. Thus, the hypothesis of open development is the expression of both a potential development opportunity – but also an important research domain: it is an open question as to the nature of these new, relatively speaking more open, social arrangements and processes, that actually bring about developmental benefits. It isn’t the configuration (open or closed, available or unavailable) that is important in and of itself, rather it is the developmental outcomes that result (e.g., does it increase the capabilities of marginalized populations to participate effectively and meaningfully in the determination of their own lives?) How, for whom, and in what situations do these new open models work to be more inclusive/exclusive? Thus, as a hypothesis, open development expresses agnosticism with respect to the structure and process (i.e., how open or closed it is) – and encourages investigation into the matter.
However, I will be the first to admit that it is not terribly effective to express a hypothesis with a concept… something that I am quite sure, and understandably, leads to confusion.
In a follow up point, you state:
“More specifically the authors of the paper have not addressed the rather fundamental dilemma for their position of how to achieve active participation in an ‘open’ environment in the absence of some sort of direct and effective intervention in support of this.”
This is true. However, if ‘open development’ is understood as a hypothesis, one can see why we haven’t addressed that dilemma. Indeed, the paper is an explicit acknowledgement that we don’t know how to best intervene in different contexts, and as such we call for research to improve our understanding of how to do so. Implicit in the hypothesis, however, is that for any ‘open’ initiative, special attention must be paid to those who were previously less enabled/empowered.
All of this is terribly theoretical, and becomes much clearer when put in context with examples. To provide one example, I’ll quote from the piece I’m currently working on:
“… it is not a foregone conclusion that ‘openness’ will necessarily benefit the disempowered and marginalized; indeed one might anticipate that in times of transitions, those with the resources to take advantage of the situations would benefit the most. This happens both at the macro level, with actors such as the mobile operators, as well as on more local levels. For example, a study in Bangalore showed how the increase of open data (digitization of land records) led to large land capture by the already rich and empowered rather than benefiting the poor and disempowered (Benhamin et al. 2007).”
If you want to construct good policy it is important to understand the question of how a particular situation connects with development outcomes. It is research to explore that type of knowledge that the IDRC wishes to invest in. How can open educational resources (OER) be integrated into classrooms to improve educational achievement? What are the collaborative models for the development of quality and locally relevant OERs? What are the effective ways to open up government data such that it can be effectively put to use by civil society too? How and to what extent does open access to research increase knowledge generation and use in the developing countries? What are some sustainable business models for the publication and management of research outputs that maximizes its developmental benefits? There are, of course, many such questions, in many domains of social life. Important research questions, we believe, especially in a context where others are doing, rather than researching.
The notion of power is also implicit in the discussion in the paper of the flattening of hierarchical structures and about who: who can participate, who can access, who produces, and who owns?
Indeed, central to the notion of ‘open’ is the broadening of who is (meaningfully!) included in all of these activities. As such, it is an expression of exactly the challenge you lay out in the post:
“The challenge for development is not the challenge of “open” or “closed”—“available” or “unavailable”—rather the challenge is one of ensuring that those who are the “object” of development are also its subjects…”
What makes “open development” so intriguing and something that I believe is qualitatively new – is the fact that new technologies provide the potential (caveats, caveats!) for those who were previously excluded to become the authors rather than the objects of development. Open development, for me, is an expression of the recognition that development too often sees people as the passive objects of development, to which something is done, and training is given – and shifting that perspective to seeing them as active participants – the creators and innovators – of development. Indeed, underlying the hypothesis is a belief in the transformative nature of these technologies provide to reorganize how we do things in society in a way that radically shifts power towards those that previously were excluded. Of course, this is not a process of change that is happening in a vacuum, and as such we would expect all groups of society to act to protect their perceived interests — and even use. Indeed, another problem with a term such as ‘open development’ is that it can easily be neutered and co-opted by those in more privileged positions, much in the same way that participation became a superficial box-ticking activity. This is why I think your post is helpful, as it highlights the critical importance of such an analysis. True participation is meaningful and inclusive and highly attuned to power differentials, just as true openness (from my perspective) is – however, it is all too easy to slip to the a-politicization and bureaucratization of the process, and thereby ignoring, and even undermining, what it is really all about.
You conclude:
“It is hard from this paper to see how a commitment to “open development” or “open ICT4D” is much more than a commitment to further enabling the (already) enabled and empowering the (already) empowered.”
I hope that my explanation above helps to dissuade you from this conclusion. Indeed, any activity that further enables the already enabled and empowers the already empowered is by our very definition not ‘open development’. Of course – power is a relative concept – as more open arrangements vary greatly by domain (open government data will be used by a different group than will open access to research and open educational resources). However, within each domain, there exist possibilities of constructing a new social arrangement and processes that reconfigure the existing status quo, enabling and empowering those who previously were less enabled and empowered. As civil society NGOs (who have more power than say a particular marginalized population) benefit from open government data – they have increased their power vis-à-vis the government. Private sector companies will also benefit – so it is important to ensure that SMEs, for example, are also taken into consideration and enabled when engaging in such a venture. Open access to research hopefully enables southern researchers a better opportunity to diffuse their research as well as access existing research, which is indicative of an improvement of their position vis-à-vis other researchers in the world.
So, I’ll leave it there – there are other points in the post that I’m interested in engaging with, but I think I’ve gone on long enough for now. Thanks again for your thoughtful critiques – they are always much appreciated!
Michael Gurstein
December 7, 2010
Thanks for your comments and clarification Matthew.
I guess I would be rather more confident of the outcome of your indicated five year research program on “Open ICT4D” if the initial document hadn’t failed to address what I (and presumably you, based on your comments above) consider to be “a” if not “the” central issue—that is “who the increasing “openness” in “development” is ultimately meant to benefit”—is it just the already empowered/technologically enabled.
I note for example, that what appears to be the only reference to this question in your document is buried in the second sentence of the second paragraph under section 4.1.1 on page 16, i.e. “Especially in developing countries this includes issues of access for marginalized or disempowered groups based on their gender or class relative to the empowered groups”.
I should be clear that I have nothing against the “openness” movement per se but I do have significant concerns that the benefits of openness, at least as is currently being discussed and developed, will accrue primarily to those who are best positioned to take advantage of the opportunities that this openness presents—whether it is in access to scientific information, government data, or research (and research funding) from the IDRC.
I think we can both agree that given the attention that is now being given, there is little additional requirement for a funder like the IDRC to be supporting the development of more “shiny apps” as someone reflecting on an earlier of my blogposts described the current process of facilitating “open access”. Rather the requirement is to determine how (or rather if) those who would otherwise not benefit from “openness” will in fact be facilitated to participate in and benefit from the process. I’ve described this elsewhere as achieving the opportunity for effective use –in this case, of the new technical facilities such as social networking that you describe at some considerable length in the early part of your paper.
I think that it might be very interesting to examine in a systematic way not simply the technical strategies with which those currently concerned with “openness” seem pre-occupied but rather the community, social, inter-personal strategies for ensuring the broadest possible base of participation, which are as yet sorely lacking in this entire area. I note with some concern that, following the practice that seems general within the “openness” movement, virtually all of the examples that you use are ones which are directed towards enabling and empowering professionals, who in their own context are already largely enabled and empowered—teachers bureaucrats, doctors and so on—in being able to do their jobs better.
Certainly nothing wrong with that—better governance, better education, better health care has to be a goal for development. However, as you know among the most severe limiting conditions for “development” in many parts of the world (and here I would include marginalized communities in developed countries as well) is that professional service providers are either insufficient in number to provide effective service except in certain already reasonably serviced areas or, because their services are or have been privatized, their cost has been put out of reach of regrettably increasing numbers of potential service users.
So by focusing simply on extending the capacities of existing professionals little would seem to be made available to those who currently are without service. On the other hand there are alternative and community-based strategies for service development and delivery (cf. http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/editor/submission/383) which could very well benefit from being developed using an ICT platform. We haven’t I think, for example gone very far in advancing Paolo Freire’s (physical) community-based and seemingly highly effective strategies for over-coming illiteracy and that would seem to me to be a natural for experimentation in applied social networking. Similarly research in how to use ICTs to enable, empower, and facilitate grassroots users undertaking successful community-based (and dis-intermediated) micro-credit and community innovation programs focusing not on the accounting side but rather on the social and community processes. Finally, research is sorely lacking on how ICTs can support and enable local community based health and wellness activities including information dissemination but also mutual and community-based para-health support programs.
But of course, for these to be possible individuals and communities have to have access and the means to make effective use of the ICTs which are now available. Developing research in how to extend access to and the design of computer or mobile based services and how to integrate mobile services into broader community-based development programs and strategies would appear to be a pre-condition for these developments. I would thus suggest that rather than narrowing your focus you might take up what has historically been the IDRC’s mission and on which its very considerable reputation has rested and concentrate rather more attention on these perhaps more difficult issues but ones which would almost certainly have a wider range of application, implementation and benefit among the marginalized populations.