ICTworks by Inveneo

Since the Arab Spring uprisings, human rights activists worldwide have championed the power of technology, mainly the Internet and mobile phones, as tools for democracy and change. Evidence shows that they are right, social media played a role in bringing down dictatorships in the Middle East and North Africa. But other evidence shows that technology actually often reinforces social inequalities in other instances, giving more voice to the powerful, further drowning out the meek cries of the politically weak.

Social media has been successful when all social classes unite to take down the big bad evil
dictators. The Arab Spring is the contemporary poster boy for this movement. The proletariat united, rose up, and took down the bourgeois in Tunisia and Egypt, and is still fighting in Syria, Libya, and other nations. Twitter hashtags and facebook groups were large players in mobilizing protestors, who came from all backgrounds—rich, middle-class, and poor—and simply communicated with their mobile phones to organize mass movements.

It seems logical, then, to assume that social media and technology penetration will lead to more democracy and social justice. The more blackberries in a country, the less the economic disparity. The more rural telecenters, the less political corruption. Or at least so goes the thinking.

Studies show otherwise. To the extent that inequalities between social classes are affected at all by the increase in ICT usage, they often became stronger and disparity increases. In a DFID study in 2005 on telephone use in India (Gujarat), Mozambique, and Tanzania, researchers found the most wealthy and educated people used phones more and with greater frequency, in both urban and rural areas.

Other studies show that not only do more educated and wealthier people have greater access to ICTs, they also value them more, and use their for more development related activities as opposed to entertainment than poorer populations. Furthermore, the rich and smart are far more likely to produce digital content, solidifying the stronghold of the elite in societal knowledge production.

The relationship between ICT penetration and social inequalities, then, is more complex than the Arab Spring would suggest. The difference with the Arab Spring is that the people united to take down one leader, whereas daily life features far more social classes and political opinions, halting social change, or at least considerably slowing it down. While technology helped bring social justice to entire nations, it did not eliminate social classes within the nations.
In order to decrease social inequalities in ICT usage, then, ICT designers and national policymakers should consider stipulations to favor usage of their technology by marginalized social classes.

Whether it be reducing costs to allow poorer classes to buy the product or developing voice recognition technology to engage the illiterate, extra effort will be needed to reduce the social inequality of ICT usage. Preliminary efforts by USAID’s Women in Development initiative show promise; other agencies should mimic their efforts to increase ICT usage among digital minority populations. Without these extra efforts to assist marginalized populations, ICTs will only further embed developing nations with social and economic inequalities, leading to future instability and lower quality of life.

On the Twitter social network, people use hashtags, the "#" symbol followed by letters and numbers or a word to signify a Tweet in relation to a specific subject. For example, the #ICT4D hashtag is employed to represent the use of information and communications technologies for development.

After an exhaustive analysis and multiple interviews with thought leaders, I've come to the conclusion that #m4D is the best hashtag to signify Tweets related to the use of mobile phones in the international development of social and economic advancement in the developing world.

Why #m4D?

Organizations can use mobile technology in many ways to promote societal advancement - they can be platforms for the transference of voice, written text, images, data, and who knows what else, over many different types of hardware, software, and protocols. The only real denominator is that its generally usable on a mobile phone-type device - therefore we should incorporate near-ubiquitous lowercase "m".

Yet mobile technology is a subset of overall information and communication technology (ICT) field. And both mobiles and ICT are subservient to the actual end goal of development - not mobiles for mobiles' sake, but mobile technology used for development. Therefore we should draw on the "4D" in the existing #ICT4D hashtag.

Which brings us to define #m4D as mobiles for development, which includes the full gamut of mobile technologies - infrastructure, hardware, devices, protocols and apps.

Now as I've noted before, #m4D and even #ICT4D do not exist in a vacuum. In fact, they are subgroups of larger communities. And there are even subgroups to #m4D - like #Apps4D, the specific use of mobile applications for development. Before you get confused, let us review the Venn Diagram of the intersection between ICT and development to see where each community resides.

Now here is each category explained, along with its placement in these respective communities:

• ICT
  Information and communication technologies represent the full array of solutions, from FM radio to cloud computing that the world uses to create and relay information electronically.
• Mobile
  Mobile technologies, from the mobile phone to the iPad are a subset of ICT that, like the name suggests, are primarily focused on allowing the user to interact with ICT while in motion.
• Development
  Often called "international development", its the industry seeking to increase the economic and social development of disadvantaged communities and countries.
• ICT4D
  Where the use of ICT is for the purpose of developing a community, its referred to as ICT4D (ICT for Development).
• m4D
  Where mobile technologies are used for development, this is called m4D and is a subset of both mobile and development.
• Apps4D
  Where software applications interact with mobile technologies, often but not always as software on the mobile device itself, for development, it is Apps4D.

I've been following Facebook's rise in Africa pretty closely, but Rebecca Wanjiku reminds us that Twitter is also a social media platform to watch in her Twitter grows, Facebook gains ground in sub-Saharan Africa article:

Big companies like Kenya Airways, Safaricom, Nairobi Stock Exchange, Telkom Kenya, Kenya Tourist Board, Bata and Kenya Data Networks have set up a presence on Twitter as a way to engage consumers and address their concerns.

"Companies are using Twitter to spread word on offers, announcements, handle basic customer care issues, raise awareness on new products and collect views from consumers," said David Mugo, an independent social media consultant in Tanzania, Kenya and Namibia.

However, the services provided by Facebook are considered simpler to use for first-time Internet users or people with basic skills compared to Twitter, which is considered complicated and intimidating to those who may not know how to use the third-party applications available.

"Based on my statistics, Twitter usage is still low with less than 10,000 tweets a day, which is hardly enough to analyze conclusively. The number of unique users actually sending tweets is even lower, with most of them being spammers," said Jacob Ayienda, an independent software developer based in Nairobi.

.

Without a doubt, social networking has changed the technology landscape in places like Europe and the United States. But what is the role of this technology in the Global South? The February #ICT4D Twitter Chat focused on this during a lively 90-minute dialogue between technologists, implementers, and others in the ICT4D world. (Take the Chat Survey)

1. Social networking is driving ICT adoption, but which tools, why, and to what extent?
2. How can social networking increase donor, implementer, recipient participation in development?
3. What are the gaps and limitations in social networking engagement - where doesn't it work?

What social networking technology is involved?

Vincenzo Cosenza recently published a map reinforcing the dominance of Facebook as a powerhouse in the social networking world. And with new features like Facebook Zero, its also changing the way people interact with the Internet.

While Facebook is the major player in social networking, more local and regional sites like Mixi and Hi5 also have a presence in the Global South. Many others are being rapidly launched, even using other platforms, such as SMS. In fact, on Twitter, 50% of tweets are not in English.

Older technology tools like email can be used to connect and communicate with existing social networks. Still, the idea of the social networking site as a stand-alone platform has undeniably taken hold in the developing world - 25% of Kenyans who are online do not have email addresses yet 80% of all Kenyan Internet users are on Facebook.

Social changes increase participation in development work

Not surprisingly, this month's roundtable seemed to reach a consensus around the value of social networking for international development work. Social networking has tremendous potential to give voice to the people on the "receiving" end of international assistance.

It's also helping implementers in the actual work of development. Organizations are using different social networks for different purposes - Facebook is seen as a great for public outreach and youth engagement, while Twitter is better for peer exchange and identifying new partnerships.

This is one reason that ICTworks has a Facebook empowerment strategy.

Limitations on social networking

The largest constraint on social networking's influence and reach is the limited Internet infrastructure of the Global South. Communities that are not online do not feel the impact. In addition, socio-economic barriers like literacy and education can limit adoption and growth in connected societies.

Also be warned that big numbers of Facebook or Twitter followers doesn't directly translate into meaningful interactions. In fact, during the #ICT4D Twitter Chat, we came across one group that's steadfastly held its own against the social media tide: the "big men" of Africa - ministers and other government decision makers.

Reaching government decision makers with social networks

There is a still a strong culture among government leaders that "big men" don't use computers. The feeling that typing is for clerks or students. However, even if government officials are not using Facebook or Twitter professionally, they may be online in their personal life.

Regardless of personal status, they are listening to what their employees, direct reports, and family hear though online social networks. After all, they're "big men" because of their skill in reading offline social networks.

Here are a few early adopters:

• President of Togo - 4,997 fans
• President of Rwanda - 6,365 fans
• President of Côte d'Ivoire - 1,576 fans

Social networking future impact on development

Social networking technology is disruptive - no longer are donors and "big men" in government the only voices that communities have; those parties can be bypassed directly to launch grassroots movements. Indeed, many government and NGO leaders are reluctant, unable, or unwilling to use technology and are in fact being "leapfrogged" by the people they serve.

As today's youth who are growing up aware of social networking technology (even in the developing world) become the leaders and decision-makers of tomorrow, the role of global communication in "mainstream" international development will grow even more rapidly. The fast-paced spread and dropping costs of mobile technology will only feed the fire.

Michael Downey is a graduate student in human-computer interaction and ICT4D at Indiana University School of Informatics, and leads the Community Infrastructure Team for OpenMRS.

Don't forget that we're having a Twitter Chat today. We want to explore the impact of social networking technologies on businesses and communities in the developing world with our guides: ICTworks, Michael Downey, and Chloe Feinberg.

1. Social networking is driving ICT adoption, but which tools, why, and to what extent?
2. How can social networking increase donor, implementer, recipient participation in development?
3. What are the gaps and limitations in social networking engagement - where doesn't it work?

We'll start at 12-noon Eastern Time ( noon worldwide ) with introductions, then move into the discussion, using the #ICT4D hashtag in Twitter.

For those not on Twitter, you can watch the action via the handy embed below or this separate webpage:

For those new to Twitter Chats, its a freewheeling conversation around our central questions on the Twitter platform. Our hope is to learn from each other and find ways we can increase our impact using social media.

We'll archive the Chat too, in case you miss out.

Be sure to follow ICTworks on Twitter and RSVP today!

.