How ICT4D Research Fails the Poor

Abstract

Research can improve development policies and practices and funders increasingly require evidence of such socioeconomic impact from their investments. This article questions whether information and communication technologies for development (ICT4D) research conforms to the requirements for achieving socioeconomic impact. We report on a literature review of the impact of research in international development and a survey of ICT4D researchers who assessed the extent to which they follow practices for achieving socioeconomic impact. The findings suggest that while ICT4D researchers are interested in influencing both practice and policy, they are less inclined toward the activities that would make this happen, especially engaging with users of their research and communicating their findings to a wider audience. Their institutions do not provide incentives for researchers to adopt these practices. ICT4D researchers and their institutions should engage more closely with the users of their research through more and better communications with the public, especially through the use of information and communication technologies.

Present and future of the use and impact of information and communication technology in informal microenterprises: Insights from India

“…The extant knowledge on the impact of ICTs on informal enterprises appears to be limited. The development research domain is keen to collate the causal impact studies (Harris, ; Qureshi, ). A systematic review (Ilavarasan, ) had attempted to unravel the linkage between ICTs and the growth of SMEs in the developing world.…”

Citizen science for hydrological risk reduction and resilience building

“…While increasing numbers of stakeholders—governments and large development organizations, research centers and private companies, and local and national NGOs—engage in data collection, their activities are mostly uncoordinated, and the resulting data often remain underutilized. Most worryingly, very rarely do those metrics translate into usable, actionable knowledge for the communities directly affected by the environmental change …”

“…Most worryingly, very rarely do those metrics translate into usable, actionable knowledge for the communities directly affected by the environmental change. 37 Recent research 1,31,38 has demonstrated that community-based monitoring can provide reliable data to help fill data gaps, for instance in catchment and risk management. 1,2,[39][40][41][42][43] Comprising both outreach (awareness raising, increased scientific literacy, community cohesion, and social capital) and research (robust and meaningful metrics) outputs, the participatory, community-led approach can be fruitful for policy development over a variety of geographical scales.…”

Are we making a Better World with Information and Communication Technology for Development (ICT4D) Research? Findings from the Field and Theory Building

“…Despite the above exemplar, it has been argued that ICT4D research fails the poor (Harris, 2015). It fails the poor because: (1) few researchers engage in advancing policy positions needed to make a difference, choosing instead to focusing on highly specialized, largely quantitative studies that make ICT4D research less accessible to the general public; (2) ICT4D researchers do not engage closely with the users of their research findings thus disconnecting findings from real-world issues; and (3) reinforced by a publish or perish culture that is obsessed with citation rates and impact factor, few researchers engage in advancing policy positions or contributing to practice (Harris, 2015;Davison, 2012).…”

“…It fails the poor because: (1) few researchers engage in advancing policy positions needed to make a difference, choosing instead to focusing on highly specialized, largely quantitative studies that make ICT4D research less accessible to the general public; (2) ICT4D researchers do not engage closely with the users of their research findings thus disconnecting findings from real-world issues; and (3) reinforced by a publish or perish culture that is obsessed with citation rates and impact factor, few researchers engage in advancing policy positions or contributing to practice (Harris, 2015;Davison, 2012). While they may be well-intentioned, there is a sense that technology development projects also fail the poor by failing to address the challenges that they face (Easterly and Easterly, 2006;Heeks, 2002;Kleine and Unwin, 2009).…”