unrisdfor social development · society studies, new media studies), through the continuously...

Understanding“InformationalDevelopments”A Reflection on Key Research Issues

Report of the UNRISD Workshop26–27 September 2003, Geneva

Introduction

This workshop brought together academics from variousdisciplines, researchers working with civil society, andsubject specialists from donor and multilateral agenciesin a collaborative effort to begin mapping key researchissues relating to “informational developments” anddevelopment policy. Key research themes and ideas forfuture research were discussed in the context of howresearch findings and evidence were being used inpreparation for the then upcoming first session of theWorld Summit on the Information Society (WSIS, heldin Geneva on 10–12 December 2003), as well as inother global information and communicationtechnology (ICT) and development policy forums.

The rationale for the workshop, elaborated in exchangesbefore it began, was based on recognition of a numberof factors. Questions of whether informationaldevelopments are provoking fundamental changes ineconomic and social relationships need to be addressed.In parallel, and almost irrespective of the answers tothese questions, the “information society” discourse hasacquired an importance in and of itself. This derives inpart from the perceptions of the scale of theinformation “revolution”—and if world leaders talk ofan unprecedented revolution, then such perception issignificant. More concretely, the role, witnessed in the

ContentsContentsContentsContentsContents

Analysis ofCurrent Discourses

The WSIS Discourse in theContext of Social

Development

Discussion Theme One:The Poverty of Research

Discussion Theme Two:Informational Development

and Economics

Discussion Theme Three:The Political Potential

Toward Researchwith Meaning

Conclusions

Agenda

Participants

United NationsResearch Institutefor Social DevelopmentUNRISD

Group of 8 (G8), WSIS and the United Nations ICTTask Force, of the information society as a seriousfactor in development policy making has major practicalimplications for the planning, implementation andbudgeting of development assistance. What is less clearis how these factors interact with each other. Logically,they should be closely connected and inform each other,but any such connections are far from transparent. Aneed to critically examine each factor, and if and howthey are connected, lay at the heart of the workshopagenda: that and the potential for theory and empiricalresearch to illuminate the changes taking place and theconsequent choices facing development actors.

The focus on how the intellectual agenda should servedevelopment needs is vital but far from straight-forward. There are a number of complicating factors.The “information society” is a political arena. Changingsocial relations of production and reproduction arealways reflected in politics. One of the arenas forsuch politics is in the shaping of how such changesare studied, debated and understood—that is, in thestruggle for control of discourse. The “informationsociety” is a contested arena. Some argue that it doesnot exist either because they do not perceiveinformation-related change as significant or, likeManuel Castells, the author of the most exhaustiveand referred to sociological analysis of the

2

7

10

12

14

16

20

22

23

2

Understanding“Informational Developments”:A Reflection on KeyResearch Issues

“information age”1, because they see the informationsociety as an erroneous way of conceptualizing ordescribing what is taking place. Others make extravagantclaims about the scale, pace and opportunities of change,claims which can have political or commercial overtones.It can be hard to elaborate positive development optionswithout appearing propagandistic. And the “informationsociety” is a confusing arena: terms like “ICT revolution”(that is, the assumption of a technology-driven process),“knowledge economy” and “network society” are oftenused with little reference to their origin or to potentiallysignificant differences between them.

In planning this UNRISD workshop, it was necessaryto agree on a conceptual approach that would allow themultiple perspectives of the subject area to be exploredwithout implying a preconceived preference for any one.One notion is common to all approaches to this subjectarea: those for or against a revolution thesis, those whosee change as driven by technology and others who seesocial or economic drivers, those who perceive commonworldwide trends and others focused on localparticularities. All agree that information is being handledand, at least sometimes, used in new ways. If we acceptthis, and label such new ways of handling and usinginformation (which clearly include its communication,reception, response, adaptation and re-use) “infor-mational developments”2 we have a core phenomenon,the nature and impact of which may be studied anddiscussed. Informational developments are clearlytaking place. They are shaped by and in turn shapesociopolitical, economic, cultural and technologicalprocesses. From a study of informational developments,their varying forms in different contexts, and how theylead to action for change and transformation, and froma recognition of what we do not know about them, itshould be possible to shape a critical understanding ofcurrent discourse and to determine how intellectual

work may contribute to the identification and choice ofdevelopment options.

Three background papers on current discourses, existingresearch and WSIS, written by Mike Powell, TommiInkinen and Cees Hamelink, respectively, served tocatalyze the workshop discussions. Participantscontributed brief outlines (spoken or written) on whatthey saw as key issues. In broad terms, the agenda wasstructured to start with a critical analysis of existingwork in the subject area, and then to move on to issuesfor future research. While the multifaceted discussiondid not always fit neatly into such a linear agenda, itwas broadly adhered to. Likewise, this report aims topresent a summary of the workshop and its surroundingexchanges in a form that structures the various threadsof discussion for the reader, rather than according tothe actual meeting agenda.

The notion began to grow that arevolution was under way—but onethat could be “managed” by thepowers that be on behalf of society,rather than a social process likeevery other revolution in history.This top-down approach wascharacterized by an overemphasison the need for technical solutionsand an erroneous belief that suchsolutions could only be delivered bythe private sector.

Analysis of Current Discourses

Environment for research and debateEven the best research is of little value if it is not readand used. Equally, people must be able to identify andaccess information that is, in form and content, relevantto their needs. Both processes would benefit from astructured and signposted information environment. Inhis background paper for the workshop, Mike Powellargued that, for different reasons, both the institutionaland the academic environments related to informational

1 See Manuel Castells, The Rise of the Network Society, TheInformation Age: Economy, Society and Culture, Vol. I.Blackwell, Oxford, 1996 (second edition, 2000); The Power ofIdentity, The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture,Vol. II. Blackwell, Oxford, 1997 (second edition, 2004); andEnd of Millennium, The Information Age: Economy, Societyand Culture, Vol. III. Blackwell, Oxford, 1998 (second edition,2000). An excellent summary of his thinking at the time isInformation Technology, Globalization and Social Develop-ment. Discussion Paper No. 114, UNRISD, Geneva, 1999, apaper Castells presented at the UNRISD conference, Informa-tion Technologies and Social Development, in 1998.

2 Cees J. Hamelink. 2003. “Human rights for the informationsociety.” In Bruce Girard and Seán Ó Siochrú. (eds.), Commu-nicating in the Information Society. UNRISD, Geneva, p. 123.

3 The following sections on institutional discourse, academicdiscourse and articulation are excerpted from Mike Powell.2003. UNRISD Social Impact of Information TechnologyProgramme: Perspectives Past and Present. Workshop back-ground paper, mimeo, UNRISD, Geneva.

3

Understanding“Informational Developments”:

A Reflection on KeyResearch Issues

developments are chaotic, as are the linkages betweenthem.3 Nor, he argued, were the demands of academicresearch the same as those facing an institute such asUNRISD, which is mandated to carry out research thatcan be applied by the development community.

Institutional discourse

At the political and policy level it was, for a long time,difficult to attract attention to broad issues ofinformation-related change. To this day, mostgovernments and large development organizations makelittle or no distinction between ICTs and widerinformational developments. Accordingly, up to the late1990s, they tended to leave all issues relating toinformational change, including social and organizationalones, in the hands of their internal ICT experts. Thoseorganizations that were the first to recognize the policyimportance of ICT–related issues tended to see this asan area in which they could gain competitive advantagerelative to other organizations, a process that requiredthem to become the “expert” on the subject rather thana participant in a collective learning and developmentprocess.

The notion began to grow that a revolution was underway—but one that could be “managed” by the powersthat be on behalf of society, rather than a social processlike every other revolution in history. This top-downapproach was characterized by an overemphasis on theneed for technical solutions and an erroneous beliefthat such solutions could only be delivered by the privatesector. And in this context, the private sector was,primarily, the multinational corporate sector. It had theresources to participate in the multiplicity ofconsultative processes where global policy was shaped.

The role, for example, of small and micro businesses,social actors and artists in technology innovation, orthe potential for multi-player collaborative developmentof new products and services, were little understoodor supported. As a result, most international policy onthe information revolution has evolved from a poorlydeveloped set of options, paying insufficient attentionto the complexities of social and economic change orthe diversity of local responses. The dominant paradigmhas been one of a globally standard and linear processto which countries need either adapt, or fail.

Some acknowledgement has been made of otherapproaches. The Digital Opportunity Task Force (DOTForce4) Plan of Action, in particular, gives some

emphasis to the value of local content and technicalinnovation, and a number of funding schemes exist topromote such activity. But the process of collating suchlocal activity, learning from it, and examining its potentialas evidence for developing distinct and appropriatepolicies—at even a local level—is almost always lacking.The chances of having the lessons of such activities—or the potential impact on them of global policies—considered in the formulation of global policies andagreements are yet more remote. In this, the decision-making process as it relates to ICT and developmentmirrors that of other development debates. Parti-cipatory methodologies are often hindered by politicalglass ceilings.

Most international policy on theinformation revolution has evolvedfrom a poorly developed set ofoptions, paying insufficientattention to the complexities ofsocial and economic change or thediversity of local responses. Thedominant paradigm has been one ofa globally standard and linearprocess to which countries needeither adapt, or fail.

Academic discourse

From the perspective of an outsider wanting to beinformed about and make sense of such profoundchanges allegedly affecting his or her life, academicresponses to the information revolution and informationsociety are problematic for different reasons. First, andnot surprisingly given the importance of thephenomenon, relevant work is being done in a multitudeof disciplines, none of which can offer a holisticinterpretation of what is happening. These disciplinesrange from the very new (infonomics, informationsociety studies, new media studies), through thecontinuously evolving relatively new (media andcommunications studies, cultural studies, computerscience, information studies, development studies,organizational and business studies) to the moretraditional (geography, economics, political and social

4 The DOT Force, created following the 2000 G8 summit, wasto identify concrete ways of bridging the digital divide be-tween industrialized and developing countries, and to ensurethat developing countries fully participate in the constructionof a truly global information society.

4


sciences). Second, and beyond interdisciplinary politics,genuine problems exist in effective communicationbetween disciplines: there may be little in the way ofcommon basic knowledge or approaches. Third, andperhaps most importantly, there is little common groundto define exactly what the phenomenon is which needsto be studied: new social relations, new economics, newtechnology, information systems, networks? And if thisis not clear for a discussion of information revolutionor information society in general, it is further cloudedwhen a development perspective is added. Approachesrange from ICT as an integral facet of capital-ledglobalization, through a range of “development ascatching up” scenarios, to more considered views ofinformational developments within and betweenlocalities, and their implications for local developmentstrategies.

To the long-running debates ondiffering philosophical approachesto knowledge, must be added moremodern debates about knowledge asmerchandise, commodity or publicgood.

Finally, any discussion that includes the concepts ofknowledge society or knowledge economy needs anexplicit definition of knowledge. Is knowledge the“justified true belief ” of traditional post-enlightenmentWestern science, or is it a more complex, holistic andadaptable entity, as argued increasingly by feminist andother critiques of scientific objectivity? At the very least,the issue of whether the discourse is being limited toWestern concepts of knowledge needs to be clarifiedbefore talking about knowledge and development orknowledge societies elsewhere in the world. Indeed, tothe long-running debates on differing philosophicalapproaches to knowledge, must be added more moderndebates about knowledge as merchandise, commodityor public good.

Articulation

As the multitude of journals and conferences suggests,there is no shortage of research on aspects of theinformation revolution, or of initiatives aimed atbringing researchers together. But such processes havenot yet successfully shaped or articulated the range ofrelevant academic work on the subject so that itbecomes comprehensible and accessible. Shaping andarticulating the research does not mean a desire or an

expectation of unanimity or consensus. It reflects a needfor some topography by which the differing views anddebates on offer can be located, and their relationshipto each other made visible. It also reflects the advantagesof the common use of concepts and terminology—ashared language—or at least of habits of explainingwhat is meant when alternative uses of a term exist.

Articulation is also developed through networking. Manynetworks of researchers in these areas exist, althougheffective multisectoral networks involving practitionersand policy makers as well are less common. Many havea limited life-span, others are either very specific to acertain issue or lack clarity of purpose. In organizingthis workshop, UNRISD was aware of a number ofnetworks and listservs relevant to related topics, butof no single one successfully bringing together andarticulating an understanding of social actions andreactions in an information society.

Information society researchin the social sciencesIn comparison with what might be expected in moreestablished fields, knowledge of valuable sources ofrelevant research and writing on informationaldevelopments tends to be specific to individuals,constituted not only by particular disciplinarybackgrounds but also by personal experience andnetworks. Tommi Inkinen’s background paper for theworkshop aimed to provide a more objective surveyof the current body of social science research in thisarea.

Common themes

The paper outlines certain essential issues and concepts,beginning with “information and knowledge society”and tracing the various uses and understandings of theterms information, knowledge and post-industrialsociety in sociological research. The value of suchdescriptions is undermined because the conceptualdiversity of the term allows its use to mean an almostinfinite variety of issues. A structured answer to thequestion “Does our societal reality constitute a service,knowledge, information or knowhow society?” remainsto be found.

In Inkinen’s paper, the term most commonly used isinformation society, as the focus is on the various actorsusing ICTs and the relationships between them.According to him, these actors constitute publicorganizations, companies and citizens, and their

5



interactions re-form communities and societies. “Socialscientific information society research” refers to workassessing the changes introduced by ICTs to societalprocesses, including aspects of regional development,social stratification, the effect of entrepreneurial activityon communities, and changes in how organizationsoperate.

Inkinen’s paper also surveys the use of the term “digitaldivide”. Although its use to describe divisions within asociety is acknowledged, Inkinen primarily uses it toimply disparities in the adoption of and access totechnologies between different countries. Inkinenprovides an overview of research into the Observatoryon the Information Society, an Internet-based gatewayto online resources on ethical, legal, sociocultural andpolicy issues of the information society maintained bythe United Nations Educational, Scientific and CulturalOrganization (UNESCO).5 The research cited byInkinen found that the categories that have elicited themost attention and discussion via the Observatory arethe digital divide, e-commerce, freedom of expression,international organizations, “infostructure” andtransborder privacy.6 He notes that the number of itemsrelating to intellectual property issues were less than afifth of those relating to the digital divide.

The rapid rise in Internet usage and the opportunity toengage in new entrepreneurial activity has brought aboutthe concept of “new economy”. The concept does notrefer exclusively to companies operating through theInternet, but rather to the new, accelerated productionachieved through the development of ICTs. While thenew economy has been an important aspect ofdiscussions about the information society, there has beenno unanimity as to whether this does or does not relateto broader processes of economic change. Thereremains, however, no doubt that the emergence of new,more efficient guidance and evaluation systems, novelbusiness arrangements enabled by ICTs and new, leanorganizational forms have affected business in manyfields. Understanding the economics of these changesremains an important precondition for globalinformation society development.

Gender issues are also at play in the information society.The question of the direction of change is still blurred,and whether ICTs will narrow or exacerbate existinggendered divisions in society remains to be seen. Thereis evidence, however, that women are not as stronglyassociated with the “development project of theinformation society” as are men.

There remains, however, no doubtthat the emergence of new, moreefficient guidance and evaluationsystems, novel business arrangementsenabled by ICTs and new, leanorganizational forms have affectedbusiness in many fields.Understanding the economics ofthese changes remains an importantprecondition for global informationsociety development.

The late 1990s saw a surge in the number ofpublications about “virtual communities” at thetheoretical level and in the form of edited collectionswith little empirical grounding in the societal role ofICTs. Both mass and specialized media also gavesubstantial coverage to these issues. Since the burstof the dot-com bubble in global stock markets in2000, the idea of “virtual change” has suffered asubstantial loss of appeal. According to Inkinen, theeffects of the Internet, for example, were in mostcases largely overestimated. This is because theempirical data related to ICT usage patterns waslimited, and thus most of the writings were theoreticalexercises. Yet in the academic world, the concept ofvirtuality introduced some fresh ideas to social theory.

The virtual community arguments are connected withanother popular theme of the mid-1990s: “identity andthe Net”. This refers to the individual usage of networks,the disembodiment of the user and the possibility of aself-created “network self ”.

Existing materials

Inkinen’s background paper goes on to offer a briefdescription of some major sociological approaches tothe information society, most notably the pioneeringwork of Frank Webster and Manuel Castells. The paperthen considers a number of policy-related reportson the information society such as the HumanDevelopment Report 2001, Making New Technologies Work

5 www.unesco.org/webworld/observatory6 Inkinen cites I. Tuomi. 2001. “From periphery to center: Emerg-

ing research topics on knowledge society.” Technology Re-view No. 116. Sitra, Helsinki.

6


for Human Development.7 This report contains detailedexplanations for why technological development doesnot necessarily lead to uneven distribution of incomein the global economy but acknowledges the followingpoints, in particular (pp. 1–8).

The market is a powerful engine oftechnological progress—but it is notpowerful enough to create and diffuse thetechnologies needed to eradicate poverty.

Developing countries may gain especiallyhigh rewards from new technologies, butthey also face especially severe challenges inmanaging the risks.

National policies will not be sufficient tocompensate for global market failures; newinternational initiatives and the fair use ofglobal rules are needed to channel newtechnologies toward the most urgent needsof the world’s poor people.

Despite these caveats, the tone of the report is that nostate, company or other organization will be able toignore technological development. ICTs are becoming,and in many sectors already have become, an essentialpart of daily activities or procedures. This constitutes adevelopment process that has already changed thetraditional patterns of operation both in governanceand in business, and will continue to do so. Indeed, thereport concludes, breakthroughs in digital technologyenable the information society in much the same wayas the steam engine and electricity enabled theemergence of industrial society.

In the case of developing countries, technology as anengine for development may appear as a distant idea.The UNDP report raises a number of challenges thatdeveloping countries should meet, including raising thegeneral level of education for a resulting increase inthe professional workforce; and securing economicresources. The report recommends, among other things,an increase in direct and indirect investments and theprovision of global institutional support.

Inkinen’s review of recent reports from United Nationsagencies and other multilateral organizations such as

the Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD) and the European Union foundstriking similarities between them. Most take a positiveview of the potential impact of the information society,despite acknowledging the same structural problems forthe information society in developing countries: thenature and credibility of the political system, reformof economic life, and the modernization or creationof physical infrastructure. In general, the reports donot detail how the measures they suggest can beimplemented, and they tend to repeat generalizationssuch as the importance of “investing in education” and“investing in quality”’.

Current research

Inkinen’s overview also looks at current research anddissemination, based on a survey of researchers workingin the field and an assessment of the research agendasof a number of centres specializing in informationsociety research.

His findings include the following:

the high level of activity in social scientificresearch on the information society withnumerous new series of publications;

a strong bias toward research on theinformation society in developed countries;

a plethora of works that are theoretical andmake little use of empirical data to verifythe hypotheses presented;

a parallel lack of research grounded in localrealities, and evidence-based comparisons(what significance does technologicalequipment have for its users; what mean-ings does the information society harbourfor its citizens; do citizens and theiropinions differ between different regions?);

lack of good-quality data sets, and indica-tors that are unimaginative, too rigid toinvolve the local context, too technical, andneed to be developed in the direction ofsocial sciences;

the wide range of topics studied at specialist“information society research centres”, witha concomitant lack of clear researchagendas or of acknowledged expertise indefined areas; and

7 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2001. Mak-ing New Technologies Work for Human Development. OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford. www.undp.org/hdr2001/

7



the problems of making the necessarilymultidisciplinary character of informationsociety research work in practice, despiteinadequate resources, differing work habitsand diverse areas of scholarly focus.

In conclusion, Inkinen’s paper argues strongly for moreempirical research, especially on the interaction of localand cultural factors with innovation; for more human-centred approaches to the study of technology; andfor better indicators of change. More broadly, he argues,it is impossible to conduct a thorough study on anyaspect of society without considering developments intechnology and changes in communications.

The WSIS Discourse in theContext of Social Development

In his background paper, Cees Hamelink places theWSIS discourse in the context of social development.While the subject of the summit was the nebulous andcontested concept of an information society, and whilethere was some initial interest in research-based inputsto the summit process, in the end, Hamelink asserts,WSIS did not make formal reference to existingacademic work. According to Hamelink, therefore,there is a disturbing lack of clarity in the WSISdocumentation—up to and including that produced atthe third WSIS preparatory conference (prepcom)—on vital societal issues.8

UNRISD and social developmentHamelink assesses the extent to which WSIS discoursesaddress issues of social development, defined byUNRISD as improvements in social relations, socialinstitutions and social welfare.

However, because “improvement” is subjective and maytherefore be ambiguous, we need a sense of directionin which this intended improvement should go. Herewe can use the two core values that have been importantguidelines for UNRISD research:

that every human being has a right to adecent livelihood; and

that all people should be allowed toparticipate on equal terms in decisions thataffect their lives.

Thus, Hamelink asked, “Is the currently available WSISdiscourse promising for the type of improvementimplied by social development? Are the core values ofdecent livelihood and participation supported or ignoredin this discourse?”

The Information SocietyThe key notion of all the WSIS texts is “the informationsociety”, yet the concept is not defined in thedocumentation, remaining an obscure and contestedvariable. In various texts one finds formulations like“the information society can” or “the informationsociety will”. Apart from his observation that it is rathernonsensical to propose that a society would dosomething (a classical case of “reification”), Hamelinknotes that the texts basically say that the key agent inessential social processes is an undefined actor.

He proposes that it may be more appropriate to usethe concept “informational developments”. This refersto the growing significance of information productsand services, to the increasing volumes of informationcollected, stored and made available, to the essentialrole of information as a backbone of many socialservices and as crucial factor in economic productivity,and to the input of information processing intotransactions in trading and finance. Societies areconfronted with informational developments in manydifferent ways, at different speeds and in differenthistorical contexts.

Reference to the information society has becomeroutine, and the fact that the validity and usefulness ofthe term has been challenged by academics as misleadingis ignored. Such routine use of the term suggests aconsensual understanding of its meaning. In many ofthe popular, business and political writings on the topicit remains unclear what kind of social arrangement theinformation society represents. Nebulous concepts lendthemselves easily to different purposes, and it makes agreat political difference, for example, whether theinformation society is inspired by a neoliberal politico-economic framework or is driven by “alter-globalist”aspirations. After reading though the official WSISdocumentation, the question remains as to what“worldview” stands behind the information societyproposition.

8 The remainder of this section includes lengthy excerpts fromCees J. Hamelink. 2003. An Analysis of the WSIS Discourse[in the WSIS Draft Declaration* and Supporting Documenta-tion*] in View of Social Development. Workshop backgroundpaper, mimeo, UNRISD, Geneva.

8


This makes it difficult to assess whether the current WSISdiscourse—if implemented—promotes the goals andvalues of social development.

No structural analysisIn Hamelink’s view, a striking feature of the WSISpreparatory documents is the lack of serious and criticalstructural analysis that takes into account the wide rangeof political, economic and social environments withinwhich ICTs may be debated in terms of policy orintroduced as tools. For example, there are referencesto the democratic potential of ICTs, both in the senseof a democratic utilization of ICTs and in the sense ofthe reinforcement of democratic practices though theapplication of ICTs. Statements about ICTs anddemocracy make little or no sense, however, if onedoes not at first analyse whether the modern societiesthat promote and fund ICT developments representdemocracies. In countries where systems of governancecan be more adequately described as bureaucratic, “thequestion is not whether the use of ICTs can reinforcedemocracy, but whether uses of ICTs can support afundamental process of change from a bureaucraticstructure to a democratic arrangement. In spite of allthe participatory potential ICTs may have, this will notbe an easy process”.9

InclusionThere seems to be strong consensus on the proposalthat the information society should be inclusive andaccessible to all. Apart from the fact that the notion ofinclusion is neither defined nor elaborated in the WSISdocumentation, this presumes without furtherquestioning that everyone wants to be included.

Yet Hamelink poses the question: “What does ‘inclusion’mean?” Is this analogous to proposing that everyoneshould be included in the free-market economy? Thenotion is presented as inherently benign. Withoutexplanation about the entity within which everyoneshould be included, it is unclear as to whether one shouldwelcome or mistrust inclusion.

How far is being included a free choice? Is it possibleto consider that there may be people who would prefernot to live in whatever the information society might

be? If, for example, an information society implies asocietal dependence upon fallible, unreliable or ill-understood technologies which imply great social risks,could it make sense for sensible people to let theopportunity pass by? If an information society meansthat all included people get more information, but ifthat information consists mainly of commercialmessages and disinformation, propaganda or hatespeech, could some people say they would rather beexcluded?

What are the real motives behind the drive towardinclusion? Is the anxiety about digital illiteracy fed bythe same motive as earlier literacy campaigns inEuropean history? These were often not motivated bya strong desire to empower ordinary people but servedto facilitate the functioning of a system that, with toomany people unable to read or write, would not operateefficiently.

Moreover, a puzzling question is why the proponentsof the inclusion thesis expect—if information is a keyresource and if access to such resources has historicallyalways been skewed—that it could be any differenttoday. Are there any socioeconomic and politicalconditions that, in the early twenty-first century, makeuniversal accessibility to essential resources such aswater, for example, a realistic claim?

Realistic thinking about futuretechnological impact will have toaccept both benefits and risks. ICTsmay have some benign effects; theyare equally likely to have effectsthat are not so benign. It seems thatthe information society euphoriablinds policy makers in both politicsand industry to the undesirableeffects, such as loss of privacy,digital dependence or cyberwarfare.

ICT potentialIn his background paper, Hamelink also identifies acommon assumption in much of the WSIS discoursethat ICTs have a power that can advance humandevelopment, and that human potential can be achievedthrough ICTs and access to knowledge. Such statementsare puzzling because of their generality, he asserts,seeming to assume that ICTs, under whatever conditions

9 Cees J. Hamelink. 2003. An Analysis of the WSIS Discourse[in the WSIS Draft Declaration* and Supporting Documenta-tion*] in View of Social Development. Workshop backgroundpaper, mimeo, UNRISD, Geneva, p. 3.

9



and in whatever environment, have this constructivepower. This represents technological determinism in itscrudest sense.

From a social development perspective this is important,as the assumption raises the basic issues of whether,how and when advanced technologies, such as ICTs,can promote the improvements and values as aspired.Hamelink argues that the current WSIS discourse isnot helpful in this regard, because it states the equationand raises no further questions.

The following might figure among such questions. Whatis precisely meant by a phrase like “ICTs have a power”?What kind of power does this refer to and where doesthis come from? Is this a power inscribed in thetechnology design, or a power operationalized in certain(and which) forms of application? What is meant bythe phrase “advance human development”? Withoutfurther explanation this may have myriad meanings. Thesame holds for a phrase like “human potential”, becausehuman beings have an impressive potential fordestruction, for example.

Distribution of effectsAnother fairly common assumption in the WSISdiscourse, according to Hamelink, is that ICTs havemainly benign effects and that these will be equallydistributed.

Informational developments and their supportingtechnologies obviously have a certain societal impact.In the business and political community, references to“social effects of technology” are usually made withgreat ease. Yet from the academic literature, it is clearthat the issue of impact is far from unequivocal andindeed very complex. In a conventional reading of socialsciences, “effects” may be conceived of as measurablevariables because it is accepted that there are regularitiesin social processes, cause-effect chains, and identifiablecauses of effects. In a more advanced understandingof social realities—such as inspired by chaos theoryconceptions—this has all fundamentally changed. Weknow far less about effects than we may want to admit.In this view, it is not possible to anticipate with anydegree of reliability and validity the future impact oftechnological developments. The complexity of socialreality implies that technology assessment for thepurpose of forecasting is pretentious and misleading.We can and should think in the future sense—but interms of possible futures (always in the plural), both

negative and positive ones. Realistic thinking aboutfuture technological impact will have to accept bothbenefits and risks. ICTs may have some benign effects;they are equally likely to have effects that are not sobenign. It seems that the information society euphoriablinds policy makers in both politics and industry to theundesirable effects, such as loss of privacy, digitaldependence or cyberwarfare.

Hamelink also argues that the assumption that effectswould be equally distributed betrays a considerable lackof historical insight. Whatever societal effectstechnological developments—such as industrialmachinery in the eighteenth century or automation inthe twentieth century—had, there was always an unequaldistribution. Those on top of the social hierarchy usuallyhad more benefits than those lower down in the system,who often had to live with most of the risks.

Quality of lifeAnother important assumption examined in Hamelink’spaper suggests that improvement in quality of life hasto be achieved through productivity and economicgrowth. But, Hamelink argues, there is no reference tothe observation that development problems areprimarily political problems—or, rather, problems oflack of political will.

The WSIS discourse steers awayfrom politics and looks primarily attechnical tools to achievedevelopment. In Hamelink’sopinion, this ignores the mainobstacle to worldwide development:lack of political will. Related to theapolitical nature of the WSISdiscourse is the absence of attentionto questions of power and control.But the question of distribution anduse of political, economic andmilitary power, and the controlexercised by them, is essential to adiscussion about informationaldevelopments and socialdevelopment.

Here again the overriding problem is that the discourseis apolitical. Apart from the lack of empirical evidenceabout the causal connection between increased

10


economic productivity and quality of human life (theachievement of a decent livelihood), one could equallywell question the assumption that economic growthimproves quality of life. This depends entirely uponhow one defines quality of life. It makes a fundamentaldifference, for example, if one chooses a material versusa spiritual definition of quality. The key issue is probablythat development is conceived primarily in the economicsense, despite the UNDP Human Development Reports.

The WSIS discourse steers away from politics and looksprimarily at technical tools to achieve development. InHamelink’s opinion, this ignores the main obstacle toworldwide development: lack of political will. Relatedto the apolitical nature of the WSIS discourse is theabsence of attention to questions of power and control.But the question of distribution and use of political,economic and military power, and the control exercisedby them, is essential to a discussion about informationaldevelopments and social development.

A tremendous amount of financial and military poweris invested in the design, development and applicationof ICTs, as well as in data, information and knowledgeresources. Hamelink asserts that these are among thekey instruments of worldwide control over the qualityand destiny of human lives.

International agreementsHamelink’s background paper goes on to consider the1998 Agreement on Basic TelecommunicationsServices, negotiated under the auspices of the WorldTrade Organization (WTO), the 1995 WTO Agreementon Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights(TRIPS Agreement), and changes to the “settlementsystem” used to administer payments for internationaltelecommunications. He also considers why the UnitedNations has not pursued detailed implementation ofthe recommendations of its 1979 Conference onScience and Technology for Development. Withoutsuch an examination of past initiatives, he argues, newstatements about bridging the digital divide have littlesubstance.

Hamelink notes the absence in the current WSISdiscourse of reference to these and other existinginternational agreements, while recognizing that theseagreements themselves may place constraints onindividual countries (particularly developing countries)in devising locally oriented political and economicchoices.

Furthermore, the WSIS discourse refers to cultural andlinguistic diversity but makes no clear statement aboutpressures to incorporate cultural goods under thecurrent international trade law regime, and to disallowthe exemption of cultural exchanges from suchprinciples as open markets, national treatment and most-favoured-nation treatment.

In Hamelink’s view, there is sufficient evidence thatcurrent WTO agreements and the lack of humanrights–inspired conventions on intellectual property,access to technology and the trading of culturecontribute to the worsening of social relations and socialwelfare and do little to promote decent livelihoods orparticipatory models of public choice. He asserts that,for the WSIS discourse to be meaningful, it must buildchange on an analysis of existing regimes and anexplanation of how these can be reformed to addressWSIS goals.

Hamelink’s paper concludes by considering a numberof academic and research priorities that are discussedin more detail below. In particular, he argues that aresearch agenda should be purposefully designed toprovide policy makers in developing countries withanalytical perspectives and empirical data that create abetter match between technological potential and their“preferred futures”.

Discussion Theme One:The Poverty of Research

Many of the shortcomings of the WSIS process raisedin the background papers are symptomatic of a widermalaise affecting discourse about the informationsociety. However, the problem does not lie only at thelevel of international policy. Much research is also opento criticism. This applies to questions of structure—adisconnect between disciplines, and between realitieson the ground, researchers and policy makingcommunities. It also relates to content. As Antti Kasvioput it, “Do we nowadays have any adequate socialscientific interpretation about the current stage of the‘IT revolution’? If not, then we should not be surprisedat the state of the WSIS documentation or the absenceof a strong welcome for social science involvement”.According to Robin Mansell, shortcomings of theresearch in this area stem in part from the inadequatetheorization of the subject, but also from the

11



approaches to and motivation behind much of theresearch:

The vast majority of research is withinthe ‘administrative’ rather than ‘critical’tradition. Research that is within the criticaltradition tends to be non-cumulative, and non-comparative. With some notable exceptions,research tends to be either ‘technology-driven’or ‘constructionist’, resulting in a one-sidedview in both cases. A further critique is thatmuch of the available research is a-historical innature and/or oriented towards a search for‘success stories’ with little attention to the wayin which the so-called information society isembedded in everyday life. An additionalproblem is the tendency of research tofocus either on ‘structure’ (of networks,markets, etc.) or on ‘process’ (the processes ofconsumption of content, media, etc.). Thereare few illustrations of research that aims tocombine both perspectives and to understandhow meaning is created through the many waysin which people engage with an intenselymediated environment. Finally, most large-scalesurvey research is under-theorized, while manytheories about the information society are notgrounded in any form of empirical research.

This final point mirrors the main conclusions ofInkinen’s background paper, the discussion of whichbrought out a number of other problems relating tothe development and use of information societyresearch. The first was that the sheer volume of workfrom such a disparate array of sources makes a fullassessment of research in this area extremely difficult.Yet at the same time, there are serious gaps such asresearch on the value and use of knowledge as atool in and a factor of development and change.Participants argued that this served to illustrate oneof the problems facing anyone trying to useexisting research to come to an adequate overallunderstanding of informational developments andsociety. People are coming at the issues from so manytheoretical perspectives, from so many possiblestarting points, that, according to Mansell, “we justcan’t expect to water it down to one set of commondenominators”. We cannot and should not work from“one set of ideas”—defining issues and thenchallenging and debating them is fundamental to anyproductive intellectual process. The challenge,particularly when researching a new and fast-movingarea, is conducting the process in a way that hasmeaning and that both informs and stimulates thosewho may wish to act upon it.

Critical research is neither visible nor easily accessible.Inkinen used a number of obvious points of entry,such as well-known specialist institutes, information-related journals and other serial publications, and theUnited Nations system, to identify information societyresearch with a development orientation. It is instructiveto consider, apart from issues related to the type andquality of the research, the salient features of what hefound.

A strong developed-country orientation forinformation society research in mostspecialist institutes and publications, with nocentre identified as specializing in issues ofinformation society and development.

An uncritical certainty, emanating fromsome United Nations and other multilateraldevelopment agencies, of the developmentbenefits of investing in ICT, combined withan implicit and unexplained assumption thatintractable development problems (such asenergy and communication infrastructure,and universal literacy) will be magicallyovercome as a prelude to the informationage.

A strong quantitative bias toward theimportance of the “digital divide” as thekey development issue. This divertsattention from issues such as intellectualproperty and trade agreements, which mayhave equal, if not greater, developmentsignificance.

There is a strong quantitative biastoward the importance of the“digital divide” as the keydevelopment issue. This divertsattention from issues such asintellectual property and tradeagreements, which may have equal,if not greater, developmentsignificance.

Participants voiced concern that alternative views areless visible. And two participants in particular, whosejob involved trying to use research to develop clearpolicy directions for their institutions, expressedfrustration.

12


Henk Molenaar pointed out that

the amount of literature, including all the non-governmental organization [NGO] and greyliterature, is huge. But it is difficult to find somebottom ground in this, and I also find manyassumptions which are not properly justifiedin this discussion. This is not just in documentsleading up to WSIS, but in the wider publica-tions of bilateral and NGO donors. Thereseems to be a feeling that ICTs can be the answerfor everything—even critical thinkers, NGOsand others which usually have a critical, people-oriented approach, a human rights approach… when it comes to ICTs they seem to losetheir critical capabilities. Research could be a wayout of this. I have a feeling that a lot ofempirical research will be necessary, but whatwill also be necessary is to de-mystify a lot ofthese concepts.

In Ichiro Tambo’s opinion, donor agencies confrontorganizational inertia in the face of yet another set ofinitiatives, and a scepticism of technology. To assist hiswork, he said, he needed:

an explanation of the economic benefits ofinvesting in ICTs, based on a simple economicmodel and a few good examples;

background on the social impact of ICTs, bothpositive and negative; and

a glossary of technology that would provideall parties involved with a clear understandingof what any technology is and does.

The failure of research efforts to produce well-foundedand comprehensible summaries that meet such needs(or provide clear explanation of any conceptualdifficulties in meeting them) is a concern for anyonewho believes that intellectual effort should contributeto the resolution of real-world problems.

Discussion Theme Two:Informational Developmentand Economics

A common assumption of those promoting ICT fordevelopment is that there are direct links betweeninvestment in ICTs, global competitiveness andaccelerated economic development. This message canbe identified in the reports of the United Nations andother multilateral organizations surveyed in Inkinen’spaper.

It is important to be clear about what investment isbeing considered. Inkinen characterized the “neweconomy” broadly, in relation to the plethora of ICT–enabled organizational change, supply chain re-engineering, as well as internal and external businesscommunications that allow companies to trade in newways. Inkinen also reported, as did ThandikaMkandawire in his own work, that levels of ICT usagein diverse societies virtually match other indicators ofinvestment and consumption such as transport, energyuse and education. While ICT may therefore be anindicator of the size, complexity and competitivenessof an economy, it is far from straightforward to assumethat it is significant on its own or that its importance isgreater than any other area of investment. Thisconclusion is also borne out by research, commissionedby UNRISD and carried out by Philippe Barry andHamidou Diop, on the use of ICT by large andmedium-sized enterprises in Senegal.10 They identifiedconstraints of cost, skills shortage and unreliability oftechnical support, in addition to risk factors which, withthe exception of a few Internet-specific risks, couldjust as well apply to any other “modernization”investment enterprises might consider making.

This conclusion does not undermine the potential valueof investment in ICTs as enabling technologies. As such,for example, they are as essential to full participation inthe global financial services industry as the existenceof a functioning port may be to the extraction ofminerals. These technologies are also fundamental inthe growing economic significance of networks, be theyof a corporate or social nature. However, this still begsthe question of whether being enabled in such areas isa strategic economic priority for any region or country,which will depend on local analyses of comparativeadvantages, and of how such enabling may come about.Another area of investment, which is also promoted ashaving development value, is that in industries linkedto the production and development of ICTs themselves.This is problematic in a different way. Govindan Parayilargued that there are some fundamental problems, froma development perspective, with the idea of investingin ICT industries. He described a coexistence, globallyand within some individual countries, of two modes of

10 Philippe Barry and Hamidou Diop. 2002. “L’impact d’Internetsur le fonctionnement des moyennes et grandes entreprisesindustrielles.” In Momar-Coumba Diop (ed.), Le Sénégal àl’heure de l’information. UNRISD and Karthala, Paris.

13



production and the failure of markets to offer any balancebetween them.

There is an asymmetric relation betweentraditional means of production (dominatedby primary, bulk processing and manufacturingindustries) and the innovation and knowledgeindustries of a ‘post-industrial, weightlesseconomy’. While the production functions ofthe former are characterized by constant ordecreasing returns, the latter enjoys the benefitsof increasing returns. … The distributionalinequities of these dual modes of productionare manifested as the digital divide and theextreme dispersion of income between the so-called knowledge workers and unskilled workersthe world over.11

This asymmetry has numerous implications forpolicies of development economics. Its immediateeffect is to increase disparities of income both withincountries and internationally, with potentially negativeconsequences for political and social development.This is particularly evidenced by experience in thosemore economically developed nations, such as theUnited States, where the new mode is mostestablished. It also raises serious questions about theeconomic logic of attempting to direct investmentto local ICT sectors, as the very nature of increasingreturns is to offer greater economic opportunity toexisting poles of technology and market leaders thanto less advanced competitors.

Commenting on the alleged significance of the ICTrevolution in India, Parayil stressed its limited size bothin terms of workforce engaged and economicsignificance (estimated at 1.4 per cent of gross domesticproduct in the 2000–2001fiscal year). He also queriedwhether India would succeed in climbing on the digitalbandwagon or whether it would remain at anintermediate stage of a global system, carrying out basicsoftware services and business process outsourcing thatresemble a new form of primary service exports.

Parayil suggested that a better policy direction wouldbe to avoid the uncertain outcome of “late” investmentin sectors where others have already established a patternof increasing returns, and to concentrate instead on

using ICTs effectively to increase the efficiency andcompetitiveness of the rest of the local or nationaleconomy. Yet the lure of the digital economyundermines this. What, he asked, would be thecomparable social and economic impacts of similarlevels of ICT–oriented investment dedicated toproviding solutions to the internal functioning of therest of the Indian economy? In reality, an ever-increasing proportion of qualified graduates andengineers are being drawn away from other sectors toa handful of Indian cities with decreasing links to andknowledge of the rest of the country. More generally,the very possibility of investment for high employmentand more balanced expansion across a territory is deniedby the huge market-based imbalance between old andnew modes of production. Unless public policies andregulation aim to mitigate this imbalance, there is onlythe remotest prospect of investment in ICTs—eitherwithin the ICT sector or more broadly—delivering widereconomic development with its attendant social benefits.In this context Parayil mentioned “ICT literacy”programmes in Kerala, India, a state that has achievedhigh levels of social development relative to economicgrowth. He suggested that the impact of suchprogrammes, and the uses to which grassroots ICTliteracy were put, could be an illuminating area for furtherresearch.

Thus participants were either dubious about theexistence of any ICT–specific economics (theconsistency of ICT indicators with other evidenceof economic “progress”) or alarmed by the economicand social stratification ICTs may engender. Therewas little support for the oversimplified andunderspecified exhortations to invest in ICT that areoften found in mainstream economic developmentadvice. The OECD, which, in keeping with othermultilateral development agencies, does believe thatcontinuing investment in ICT is likely to producedevelopment benefits, qualifies its advice significantly.It recognizes that the evidence comes squarely fromexperience in OECD countries. As research carriedout on its behalf has concluded:

There is little or no clear evidence that the sameoutcome is yet being achieved in developingcountries, largely because little or no relevantresearch has been undertaken. However,developing countries in general, and the leastdeveloped countries (LDCs) in particular, areless well-equipped to take advantage of thepotential of ICTs to stimulate growth, and so

11 Govindan Parayil. 2003. The Political Economy of Informa-tional Development: A Normative Appraisal. Draft paper pre-sented at the UNRISD workshop, p. 4.

14


(to the extent that ICTs do stimulate growth)are likely to fall further behind OECD countriesin relative terms.12

Discussion Theme Three:The Political Potential

If there is consensus about any aspect of the informationsociety having a political character, it is the digital divide.Although sometimes seen as simply a supply-sideproblem, a number of states, United Nations agenciesand civil society organizations regard activities aimed atreducing the digital divide as political in that they seek topromote justice and inclusivity. As Inkinen reports,concern about the digital divide—usually defined as alack of access to the predominantly Northern-orientedsources of knowledge on the Internet, althoughimportance is sometimes accorded to local content—predominates in discussions of the international featuresof the global information society.

Workshop participants questioned the usefulness of theconcept. Parayil’s view—that the issue was not one ofaccess, but of equity in the distribution of resources—was widely shared. There was wide agreement with theargument in earlier UNRISD work that there is nothingspecifically digital about the digital divide.13 In termsof resources and power relationships, its inequityresembles all the other divides that exist withinand between societies. It exists not as the result of some

There is nothing specifically digitalabout the digital divide. In terms ofresources and power relationships,its inequity resembles all the otherdivides that exist within andbetween societies.

deliberate act, but as a reflection of the multitude ofinequities of the world in which we live. Likewise, itsresolution can only be foreseen in the context of muchwider changes. In this sense, it is in many ways less

political than the very deliberate decisions—such as thoserelating to trade, intellectual property and technologytransfer—with a direct (and sometimes negative) impacton poorer countries.

Another perspective was elaborated by Cheikh Guèye,starting from the French expression for the digital divide,la fracture numérique. The implication of the word“fracture” is that there was previously some “whole”that has now been broken. Not only does this conveythe fundamentally inaccurate picture of some previoustechnological equality, but it also implies that there issome global whole toward which we should aspire.Guèye criticized the current discourse and its impliedvision of a single information society, “the result of alinear trajectory that affects all people to the samedegree, linked with the same tools, the same values, thesame information, the same knowledge”. He arguedthat such a vision bears no relation to reality andreinforces the simplistic categories and divisions thatform the basis for existing relationships betweendifferent parts of the world, especially in relation to aidand development. Would it not be better, he asked, if“each society sought its own direction and appropriateresponses in line with the contexts and needs based onits own founding principles”? This echoed commentsby Ursula Maier-Rabler on the centrality of culture inhow the notions of information and of access to it areformed. Workshop participants strongly supported theview that the term information society only makes anysense in the context of a diversity of information societies,rather than as a single global monolith.

Guèye developed his argument for the localization ofissues within specific social contexts by considering thepotential role of ICTs in the fight against poverty inSenegal. He adopted a wide understanding of poverty,including lack of basic resources but also other unmetneeds and unequal relationships, of which informationis one. He described how marginalized people living onthe edges of Dakar simply lacked the information thatmight enable their social integration: “if people cannotread or cannot understand the official language, if theycannot access those nuggets of indispensable knowledge,they can only be powerless”. Arguing that financialpoverty is often but a symptom of political weaknessand a lack of family or lineage links, he quoted aSenegalese proverb “Ki raflé ki amul yeeré wayé moy ki amulnit” (the poor person is not someone without clothes,but someone without anyone). Thus, he argued, “accessto networks is access to information, and access to

12 D. Souter. 2003. ICT and Economic Growth in DevelopingCountries. Executive Summary. OECD-DAC Network on Pov-erty Reduction. Paris.

13 See, for example, Cynthia Hewitt de Alcántara. 2001. TheDevelopment Divide in a Digital Age. An Issues Paper .Programme on Technology, Business and Society, Paper No.4, UNRISD, Geneva.

15



information is access to power”. ICT—and in this heincluded all digital communication technologies, not justthe Internet—has an important role to play in addressinginformation gaps and moving on from a horizontalstructure of information provision at different levels toone in which multidirectional vertical informationexchanges create a new political dialogue.

ICT has an important role to play inaddressing information gaps andmoving on from a horizontalstructure of information provision atdifferent levels to one in whichmultidirectional verticalinformation exchanges create a newpolitical dialogue.

The key here is not simply to address issues ofinformation supply and demand, but to exploit theopportunities offered by technology for “themultiplication of opportunities for interrelation. … Thecomplexity of reality can only be managed through afunctioning network encompassing a broad palette ofactors and interests”. How such communication isachieved is also crucial. Too often, Guèye said,development information projects seek to deliversolutions that objectify the poor rather than build fromtheir existing information practices and resources toempower them.

This led to a consideration of agency. As Hamelinkhad already observed, mainstream discourse accordsincongruous powers to ICT. “ICTs can”, “ICTs will”,“ICTs have the power to” are expressions that can befound in many information society documents andspeeches. In such discourse the role of human beingsis to respond in some way to what ICTs do to, for oragainst them. This is at odds with other approaches todevelopment that envisage a process in which activecitizens are enabled to take concrete steps to improvetheir own lives and those of their communities.

Thus Kemly Camacho explained a more people-centredconceptualization of the Internet:

We do not see the network of networks (theInternet) only as a technological platform.Rather we consider it as a new space ofinteraction between human beings which wehave created for our own benefit. … We whostudy, investigate, evaluate and prompt actions

related to the Internet with a social visionexplicitly claim that we mean to use thetechnology as a tool aiming at the trans-formation of societies. We then want todiscover and promote ways…to contribute tobuilding novel societies led by common values,such as fairer relations, resulting in lessdiscrimination and more equal opportunities.14

In discussing this approach, Camacho made it clear shewas talking about a highly social process focused onpractical outcomes. She envisaged a process wherebypeople from different sectors would come together todiscuss issues, such as WSIS or the knowledge society,and existing research from a critical perspective. In suchforums people would be free to ask, “What does thismean for our country? What does it mean for us? Whatdo we need to do?”

While Camacho focused on the social processesinvolved, Mansell raised the issue of individuals’capacities and rights in making use of the Internet. Shesaid that much discussion about the Internet is not abouthow or even whether this new medium might increasepeople’s capabilities to change their lives. In fact, sheargued, it is often completely divorced from anyconsideration of the conditions of their lives, or oftheir freedom to create positive changes therein. Thus,she said, the development of new cognitive approachesallowing people to “actualize” their capacity to act inthe new media age is of social and political as well aseconomic importance, but how this can be done is rootedin existing real-world inequalities. She suggested thatthe issue be considered in the context of the work ofAmartya Sen—on functionings (what people value doing

The development of new cognitiveapproaches allowing people to“actualize” their capacity to act inthe new media age is of social andpolitical as well as economicimportance, but how this can bedone is rooted in existing real-worldinequalities.

14 Mistica Virtual Community. 2002. “Working the Internet with asocial vision.” In Other Side of the Divide: Latin American andCaribbean Perspectives on the WSIS. Posted online by Net-work on the Social Impact of the Information and Communica-tion Technologies (RedISTIC) in 2003 at www.redistic.org/indexj.htm?body=proyectosjen.

16


or being) and capabilities (the combination offunctionings that an individual is able to achieve).Applying this approach to the new media, she posed thequestion of what sets of capabilities are available topeople, and what sets could or should represent anentitlement to a citizen in the digital age. As such,Mansell opened the question of the (lack of) policy inthis area, and its links to the achievement of capabilitiesand to new concepts of human rights.15

Molenaar noted the observations made about the a-historical nature of most information society discourseand its lack of a political dimension, and commentedthat, given these, it was perhaps not surprising that athird feature of the discourse is that it is also genderblind. Thus ensued a discussion that graphically illustratedthe need to base analysis on the study of concrete realitiesin specific contexts. Mansell observed that theproportion of women active within ICT industriesappeared higher in other countries, notably China, thanin the North. Camacho commented that research onlocal knowledge systems in Central America shows thatwhat types of knowledge are held by whom is highlymediated by gender. Shahra Razavi illustrated thedangers of making generalizations about the needs ofwomen, contrasting the billions who lack access tothe most basic technologies, such as clean water, to the

The selection of a particular ICT bya group of women, clear about whatinformation they want to exchangein which context, is an entirelydifferent process than the top-downprovision of a technology accordingto assumptions of need which mayor may not be accurate.

pioneering use of ICTs by global feminist networks.What is clear is that both information exchange andaccess to resources are highly gendered processes.Powell added that what people did with resources—the uses they put them to—could also be mediatedby needs and outlooks rooted in culture and gender.He noted that the choice and application of

technologies often varied significantly from what theirinventors expected, and that the adoption of atechnology usually involved its adaptation. However,the outcomes of such processes depend on theirownership. The selection of a particular ICT by agroup of women, clear about what information theywant to exchange in which context, is an entirelydifferent process than the top-down provision of atechnology according to assumptions of need whichmay or may not be accurate. The “politics” are notlimited to the specific question under consideration—in this case gender—but include the process by whichpeople’s needs are identified, researched andaddressed.

Toward Research with Meaning

Research mappingTwo themes ran through the workshop. One was a desireto better understand informational developments andtheir relation to societies. The other was a critique ofand frustration with existing research—not aimed atindividual pieces of work, but at the collectiveachievement of research in this area to date. Someaspects of this relate to gaps in the research and tofailures of approach, which will be considered furtherbelow. Others relate to the extent to which research inthis area does or does not function as a resource—as abody of knowledge—that people can use to developpolicy or to make practical decisions affecting their livesor their societies.

The problems stem from the sheer number ofquestions relating to ICT and society that are the subjectsof research, and the myriad of starting points that directthe approaches used. As discussed above, it is unrealisticto expect researchers with a variety of interests indifferent disciplines to share the same starting points.What, then, are the options for users seekinginformation they can use from all possible researchsources, including some that were, perhaps, developedwith other end-users in mind?

Research on informational developments, or on “ICTand the modern world”, can cover anything andeverything. A research agenda for all potentially relevantareas of inquiry could produce a list as long as a phonebook, hence the need for it to be given some shape,some topography, some means of relating one pieceof the puzzle to another.

15 See Robin Mansell, New Media and the Power of Networks,paper presented at the First Dixons Public Lecture, Depart-ment of Media and Communications, London School of Eco-nomics and Political Science, 2001; and “From digital dividesto digital entitlements in knowledge societies.” Current Sociol-ogy, Vol. 50, No. 3, 2002.

17



In his background paper, Powell argued the value ofsome outline or framework within which any researchcould be situated. He proposed one possible approachthat would describe a number of connected dimensions,each interacting with the others, but each also providingsets of boundaries within which it may be easier to conductmeaningful exchanges. A very crude illustration of sucha framework, and of what types of work might fallwithin each level, is presented below. Their listing is notmeant to imply a hierarchical relationship between them.

Dimension 1: Comprehendingo Overarching themeso Philosophical and conceptual approaches

Dimension 2: Policy making,decision making

o Global regulatory and technical standardso Trade and intellectual property issueso Human rights legislationo Policy making by global institutions, multilaterals

and bilateralso Regional policy makingo National policy making

Dimension 3: Study and actiono Empirical research at societal levelo Observed changes in daily lifeo Social activismo Project and programme experience of information-

related development work

Dimension 1

Without at least some shared understandings of whatmore profound processes related to informationaldevelopments may be taking shape, which should includesome understanding of competing points of view, it ishard to locate decision making within any clear set ofobjectives or to formulate effective research questionsto guide empirical research. It is doubtful if such sharedunderstandings currently exist. Other issues that maybelong at this level include general definitions (of, forexample, development, knowledge or culture) and anyconceptual boundaries being set on the subjects underdiscussion.

Dimension 2

The creation of policy and agreements on regulation,rights and standardization should clearly be informedby research from dimensions 1 and 3. There is,

however, often also a need for substantial specialistresearch input to this dimension if an effective decisionis to be taken. Consider, for example, the regulation oftelecommunication networks in a country. A processof research and debate may lead to the conclusion thatsuch regulation should have, as its main objective,maximizing the potential for popular access to theinfrastructure. Once that decision is taken, there willbe a substantial need for more detailed research aroundissues of implementation—perhaps around technicaloptions, financial models, potential suppliers,compatibility with international regulations and standards.Each such area of research is likely to be based onhighly specialized knowledge. At the same time, thechoices inherent within such specialization may havesignificant impact on the social objectives that have beenset—in this example, maximum popular access totelecommunication infrastructure. For that reason, thismultitude of research specialities, too numerous to listhere, need to be part of the overall research landscape,so that embedded social implications can be identifiedand debated.

Dimension 3

As Hamelink observed, identifying practical orphilosophical options, and perhaps developing strongpreferences between them, is, in a sense, neither herenor there. Fundamental economic and social changesdo not come about as the result of the decisions of alimited group of people but through the interaction ofmillions of people and organizations—as economic,social and political actors. This interaction needs to bestudied. This may involve empirical research, actionresearch or simply the sifting of evidence which emergesfrom the mass of project and programme literaturerelating to work by governments, multilateral agencies,NGOs, schools and community groups in the field ofICT and social development.

Furthermore, ICT tools could be developed to aid usersto navigate the framework and to explore links betweenits different dimensions.

Research areas and questionsOn the second day of the workshop, participantsparticipated in a brainstorming session that aimed toidentify basic areas of and questions for furtherresearch, examples of which are listed below.

General

What is the goal of informational develop-

18


ments? How do we measure the progress tothe goal?

Create alternative set of indicators to assesssocial effects of informational develop-ments.

What are knowledge/network economics?How do we account for knowledge? Howdo we apportion/locate profit?

Social processes

Develop models and theories (based onempirical research) to understand the roleof information and communication insocial development.

Information development Social appro-priation of information Knowledge.Study this process.

What role does (what kind of) informationplay in promoting (sustainable) decentlivelihoods in poor communities?

Does connectivity/access help the socially/economically disadvantaged? Designempirical investigations/case studies fromdifferent developing countries.

How are new technologies impacting onlocal research and articulation in the Southand, in turn, on North-South relationships?

What are culturally appropriate strategies toacquire capabilities (in Sen’s sense) in orderto make decisions about usage/non-usage,inclusion/exclusion of/from ICTs?

Complexity

How do we identify and understand theinteraction of billions of people andorganizations making continuous smallchanges in their informational behaviour?

Action

How should we change predominantly one-way information traffic into social dialogue?

How can inclusive design processes ofICTs—across users, genders, North-South—be facilitated?

What are examples of culturally biaseddesigns of participation/inclusion, and how

are they represented and replicated by meansof ICTs?

Network society is a reality. Which ICTs,specifically, stimulate and lubricate thenetworks?

How do we develop tools to better navigatethe maze of research perspectives in thisarea?

Policy

If mainstream international discourse andpolicy may be criticized for their basis inoversimplified assumptions, then one rolefor research is to reveal the complexitiesand relationships involved; for example, therelationship between knowledge, politics andpolicy making.

The first comment that could be made about the areasand questions for research is how basic many of themare. It seems that, despite the mass of existing research,there remain fundamental questions about the linksbetween information, technology and society.

There is a need for more empiricalresearch to improve understandingof the processes by whichinformation is used to contribute tosocial and economic development,especially in the South. Manyindicators exist, but it was felt theyhad an excessively technicalcharacter and did not evidence howwell and to what purposeinformational developments andrelated ICTs were being applied.

Particular attention was focused during the brain-storming on the need for more empirical research toimprove understanding of the processes by whichinformation is used to contribute to social and economicdevelopment, especially in the South. As Camacho putit, “many of the information society books are madein the North. We may have most of the same questions,but we do not have the same answers”. This raised thequestion of the absence of satisfactory indicators totrack the acquisition and application of information ina development context. Many indicators exist, but itwas felt they had an excessively technical character and

19



did not evidence how well and to what purposeinformational developments and related ICTs were beingapplied. Indeed, without offering an explicit definitionof what an “information society” is assumed to consist,it is hard to imagine how progress toward it can besensibly assessed.

Another feature of the results of the brainstormingon research areas and questions was the number ofparticipants who suggested active engagement inmaking things happen. One aspect of this was theperceived need, felt both by civil society actors andby donors, for more effective vertical communicationand, in particular, for ways of enabling the opinionsand analysis of “the poor” to be expressed and heardeffectively. This may open up new roles forresearchers as intermediaries and facilitators. Asecond aspect was the development and use byresearchers of new ICT-based tools. This could bothbuild capacity to conduct and communicateappropriate research, and contribute to thedevelopment of information exchanges and tools thatmay benefit other social actors. It is not surprising,on a practical level, that people who use ICTs toresearch the social use of ICTs have ideas as to howsuch tools could evolve, but there is an underlyingtheoretical point. In a process reminiscent of the earlyyears of gender research, there is recognition thatwhat is researched and how it is researchedcontributes to the evolution of the reality that is beingresearched.

There is a perceived need, felt bothby civil society actors and bydonors, for more effective verticalcommunication and, in particular,for ways of enabling the opinionsand analysis of “the poor” to beexpressed and heard effectively.

Research approachAlthough it is understood that there are many justifiablereasons for approaching research from a range ofstarting points, there was a certain agreement amongworkshop participants that the approach to research inthis area is of more importance than a specific researchagenda. Too often, research that claims to be aboutsocial and development issues takes technology itselfas the starting point. There are two problems with this.The first is one of focus. Topics like “ICT and health”

or “ICT and education” tend to focus attention on ICTrather than on the problems—be they of health oreducation—that are supposed to be addressed. Second,and more fundamentally, research that essentially looksat how ICT is being applied may neglect to pose morefundamental questions about the impact of inform-ational developments on the development agenda. Oneparticipant raised the example of research on the useof ICT in “development communication”, which raisedideas about how producers of radio services involvedin development communication could improve theirproduct. Nowhere, however, were the informationneeds or environment of the intended listenersreassessed to consider how they may have been affectedby new informational developments. The research andanalysis, despite its “development” title, was directed atthe needs of the intermediary rather than of societymore broadly.

Workshop participants did not consider such specificfocus necessarily wrong. Rather, they argued that anyresearch on social or development perspectives ofinformational developments, whatever its focus, needsfirst to ground itself in the realities of what is beingstudied. Participants thus began to outline an approachthat, if applied consistently, would help situate researchwithin its wider context. The essential features of thisapproach are the following.

The need for diagnosis

What are the existing information andcommunication environments of that whichis being studied? What are the cultural andgender issues embedded within suchenvironments?

What are their characteristics in terms ofplace (global or local) and level of action(global, national, local)?

What are the specificities of decisionmaking and change processes within thesocial context being studied, and what aretheir implications for the timing and paceof change?

Consideration of the politics of the subject

What mainstream political agendas oreconomic interests are involved?

What power relationships are involvedwithin the environment being studied?

20


To what extent are people participating in/being consulted about the processes underinvestigation?

How and through what relationships are theuse of new technologies and the emergenceof new discourses mediated?

The perception of risk

What risks are involved?

How clear are the choices available toparticipants and how does this relate to thecomplexity of their environments?

What are the politics and the psychology ofrisk in these contexts?

Who takes the risk and who feels therepercussions?

Consideration of alternatives

Which discourse is being engaged?

Upon what historical and political analysis isit based?

What other perspectives are possible?

Consideration of the practical applications of

research (as appropriate)

What channels exist for developing practicalresponses where research cannot offerlinearity or coherence?

What is the relationship of the research todecision-making processes?

What is its potential contribution to thedesign of new activities?

Workshop participants placed great emphasis on howimportant it is for analysis of the social impact of aprocess to “start with society”; they agreed that whilethis might seem obvious, such focus has been lackingin most work on the information society. The need tounderstand the politics, likewise, was crucial.

Conclusions

The workshop did not seek to create a neat researchagenda, the implementation of which would

answer the many questions about the relationshipbetween informational developments, societies anddevelopment. Nor did it make strong claims for thestudy of informational developments as a separatediscipline.

Indeed, it argued strongly for such issues to beconsidered more actively within existing disciplinesbe they academic, such as economics and sociology,or practical, such as those working with people withintheir daily reality to achieve progress in socialdevelopment. Participants did, however, developevidence and arguments in favour of sustained workin three areas.

Engaging with the informationsociety bandwagonThere is clearly significant momentum towardprioritizing investment in ICT and “e-readiness” withindevelopment plans and aid budgets. Simultaneously,attention is directed to an inevitable digital divide, whilenew international law and standards more in favour ofthe rich than equitable development are enacted. Suchmomentum seems to derive from a consensus aboutthe inevitability and benign nature of technologicalprogress. Yet critical research and hard evidence arenotably lacking. It is legitimate to ask in whose interestis the development of an information-based future inwhich existing economic, political and technologicalpower relationships are not open to debate.

Acting on the limitations of the bodyof information society researchResearch in most academic disciplines has evolved insome relation to those who apply such research ingovernment, politics, industry or development. Suchlinks are not apparent between information societyresearch and communities of research users. This is aparticularly important issue for those working on thepolitical, social and economic aspects of an informationsociety. Indeed, research into the purpose, methodologyand value of research in this area is itself a justifiableresearch activity. Unless intellectuals working oninformational developments can engage with and meetthe needs of social forces engaged with and affectedby such developments, they are condemned to chargesof irrelevance and parasitism, if not of deliberateobscurantism. To achieve such engagement requires acollective effort to reorient, reshape and make accessibletheir work.

21



Promoting and conductingempirical researchThe greatest requirement is undoubtedly for empiricalresearch, especially on the social aspects of inform-ational developments, and on experiences withindeveloping countries (using and increasing local researchcapacity in the process). As Antti Kasvio put it:

Purchasing a mobile phone is just the very firststep toward the information society. The realstory begins when people start using theseinformation technology devices in order to solvedifferent kinds of everyday problems. This is astory about social innovations or about thedevelopment of new social uses of technologiesthat, in themselves, are pretty standard all overthe world. Focusing on developing countries,we have to confess that most of thesedevelopments are a terra incognita for today’sacademic social science.

In 1997, UNRISD commissioned Cees Hamelink towrite a paper on the research priorities linked to newinformation technologies, social development andcultural change. His conclusions describe, in largemeasure, the key research priorities we can still seetoday.16

The main purpose of further study and debatewould be to provide policy makers in develop-ing countries with analytical perspectives andempirical data that create a better match betweentechnological potential and preferred futures.

The first area could be concerned with thedesign of democratic and pro-activepolicies and programmes that make itpossible to realize the social developmentpotential of digital technologies. Amongother things, this entails studying

the roles that public and private sectorsshould play in the design and execution ofthese policies and programmes;

the forms of public intervention that areconducive to shaping technological change inaccordance with desirable social goals; and

the establishment of new and more demo-cratic relations between producers andconsumers of ICTs, so that technologicalprogress becomes much more responsive tosocial needs.

A second area of concern is centred around thedefinition of those social and institutionalchanges that are required to maximize thesocial benefits and to minimize the socialrisks associated with the adoption anddeployment of digital technologies. Thisentails considering

various ways of adjusting the organizationalstructures that are relevant for economicproductivity, political participation, andcultural diversity in line with preferred socialscenarios; and

the (cultural) appropriateness of educationalmethods and training materials requiredfor the realization of the technologicalpotential.

Third, it is important to discuss the designand adoption of digital technologies thatstrengthen sustainable processes of socialdevelopment. This involves creating digitaltechnologies that reduce the use of energy-intensive resources and encouraging environ-mentally sustainable application of digitaltechnologies.

Since conditions in different countries vary, noglobal solutions can be proposed in any ofthese issue areas. Country studies are neededin order to explore the specific policies,programmes and technological solutions likelyto be effective in specific social and economicconditions.

A final area of research and action-orienteddebate should no doubt involve the ‘socialshaping of technology’ in concrete situations.It is essential for those who want to use ICTdevelopment to further social goals to under-stand what forces shape technological changesand how these forces interact. This under-standing would allow policy makers toanticipate social consequences better and toconstruct those institutional arrangements thatorient technological change towards sociallydesirable ends. Here one must look at

relationships among variables affectingtechnological development, be they socio-economic, political, cultural or gendervariables, geographical locations or marketforces. Too little is known about how thesefactors interact at micro, meso and macrolevels;

the strategies through which those affectedby technological development can (re)shapethis development in socially beneficial ways.

16 The remainder of this section is excerpted from Cees J.Hamelink. 1997. New Information Technologies, Social Devel-opment and Cultural Change . Discussion Paper No. 86,UNRISD, Geneva, pp. 33–34.

22


Friday 26 SeptemberFriday 26 SeptemberFriday 26 SeptemberFriday 26 SeptemberFriday 26 September

11111 0 : 0 0 – 1 1 : 0 00 : 0 0 – 1 1 : 0 00 : 0 0 – 1 1 : 0 00 : 0 0 – 1 1 : 0 00 : 0 0 – 1 1 : 0 0 Introductory SessionIntroductory SessionIntroductory SessionIntroductory SessionIntroductory SessionChair: Mike Powell

Welcome — Thandika Mkandawire

Participant introductions and summaries of notes

Resource: “Two-pagers” — Participants’ notes on key conceptual issues and research priorities

1 1 : 2 0 – 1 2 : 4 01 1 : 2 0 – 1 2 : 4 01 1 : 2 0 – 1 2 : 4 01 1 : 2 0 – 1 2 : 4 01 1 : 2 0 – 1 2 : 4 0 Session 2Session 2Session 2Session 2Session 2Chair: Thandika Mkandawire

Critical analysis and evaluation of current research on information, society and development

Resource: Workshop background paper by Tommi Inkinen: Overviewing Information Society Research: Some RecentTrends and Future Prospects

Discussion

1 4 : 0 0 – 1 5 : 3 01 4 : 0 0 – 1 5 : 3 01 4 : 0 0 – 1 5 : 3 01 4 : 0 0 – 1 5 : 3 01 4 : 0 0 – 1 5 : 3 0 Session 3Session 3Session 3Session 3Session 3Chair: Peter Utting

Critical analysis and evaluation of the conceptual and empirical basis for the WSIS discourse andother “global information” initiatives

Resource: Workshop background paper by Cees J. Hamelink: An Analysis of the WSIS Discourse [in the WSIS DraftDeclaration* and Supporting Documentation*] in View of Social Development.

Discussion

1 5 : 5 0 – 1 7 : 3 01 5 : 5 0 – 1 7 : 3 01 5 : 5 0 – 1 7 : 3 01 5 : 5 0 – 1 7 : 3 01 5 : 5 0 – 1 7 : 3 0 Session 4Session 4Session 4Session 4Session 4Facilitator: Mike Powell

Toward a subject analysis and a research agenda (1)

Brainstorming: Elements of a socially alert approach to research

Discussion

Saturday 27 SeptemberSaturday 27 SeptemberSaturday 27 SeptemberSaturday 27 SeptemberSaturday 27 September

9 : 3 0 – 1 0 : 4 59 : 3 0 – 1 0 : 4 59 : 3 0 – 1 0 : 4 59 : 3 0 – 1 0 : 4 59 : 3 0 – 1 0 : 4 5 Session 5Session 5Session 5Session 5Session 5Facilitator: Cees Hamelink

Toward a subject analysis and a research agenda (2)

Brainstorming: Basic research questions

1 1 : 1 0 – 1 2 : 3 01 1 : 1 0 – 1 2 : 3 01 1 : 1 0 – 1 2 : 3 01 1 : 1 0 – 1 2 : 3 01 1 : 1 0 – 1 2 : 3 0 Session 6Session 6Session 6Session 6Session 6Chair: Cees Hamelink

Realizing the agenda: User needs and possible forms of collaboration

Discussion

1 4 : 0 0 – 1 5 : 3 01 4 : 0 0 – 1 5 : 3 01 4 : 0 0 – 1 5 : 3 01 4 : 0 0 – 1 5 : 3 01 4 : 0 0 – 1 5 : 3 0 Closing SessionClosing SessionClosing SessionClosing SessionClosing SessionChair: Robin Mansell

Have we met our objectives? Critical review of the process to date

Discussion

Agenda

23



Participants

Ms. Kemly CamachoCamachoCamachoCamachoCamachoFundación AccesoSan José, Costa Rica

Mr. Cheikh GuèyeGuèyeGuèyeGuèyeGuèyeEnda Prospectives-Dialogues PolitiquesDakar, Senegal

Mr. Cees J. HamelinkHamelinkHamelinkHamelinkHamelinkDepartment of Communications and Human RightsUniversity of Amsterdam, Netherlands

Mr. Antti KasvioKasvioKasvioKasvioKasvioInformation Society InstituteUniversity of Tampere, Finland

Ms. Ursula MaierMaierMaierMaierMaier-Rabler-Rabler-Rabler-Rabler-RablerCenter for Advanced Studies and Research in Information and Communication Technologies and SocietyUniversity of Salzburg, Austria

Ms. Robin MansellMansellMansellMansellMansellDepartment of Media and CommunicationsLondon School of Economics and Political Science, United Kingdom

Mr. Thandika MkandawireMkandawireMkandawireMkandawireMkandawireDirector, UNRISDGeneva, Switzerland

Mr. Henk A. MolenaarMolenaarMolenaarMolenaarMolenaarResearch and Communication DivisionDirectorate General International Co-operationNetherlands Ministry of Foreign AffairsThe Hague, Netherlands

Mr. Govindan PPPPParayilarayilarayilarayilarayilInformation and Communications Management ProgrammeFaculty of Arts and Social SciencesNational University of Singapore, Singapore

Mr. Mike PPPPPowellowellowellowellowellResearch Coordinator, UNRISDGeneva, Switzerland

Ms. Shahra RazaviRazaviRazaviRazaviRazaviResearch Coordinator, UNRISDGeneva, Switzerland

Mr. Ichiro TTTTTamboamboamboamboamboDevelopment Co-operation DirectorateOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentParis, France

Mr. Peter UttingUttingUttingUttingUttingDeputy Director, UNRISDGeneva, Switzerland

The United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) is an autonomous agencyengaging in multidisciplinary research on the social dimensions of contemporary problems affecting development.Its work is guided by the conviction that, for effective development policies to be formulated, an understandingof the social and political context is crucial. The Institute attempts to provide governments, development agencies,grassroots organizations and scholars with a better understanding of how development policies and processes ofeconomic, social and environmental change affect different social groups. Working through an extensive networkof national research centres, UNRISD aims to promote original research and strengthen research capacity indeveloping countries.

Current research programmes include: Civil Society and Social Movements; Democracy, Governance and HumanRights; Identities, Conflict and Cohesion; Social Policy and Development; and Technology, Business and Society.

A list of the Institute’s free and priced publications can be obtained by contacting the UNRISD ReferenceCentre, Palais des Nations, 1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland; phone 41 (0)22 9173020; fax 41 (0)22 9170650;[email protected]; www.unrisd.org.

UNRISD thanks the governments of Denmark, Finland, Mexico, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the UnitedKingdom for their core funding.

This UNRISD Conference News was written by Mike Powell.

United Nations Research Institutefor Social Development (UNRISD)Palais des Nations1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland

Phone 41 (0)22 9173020Fax 41 (0)22 [email protected]

Printed in Switzerland GE.05-03049-November 2005-2,000 UNRISD/CN15/05/1 ISSN 1020-8054

unrisdfor social development · society studies, new media studies), through the continuously...

Documents