2010
DOI: 10.14236/ewic/ihci2010.3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Roles and Responsibilities in agile ICT for Development

Abstract: This paper examines the different roles in designing interactive software in a ICT for development context. Using experiences from a participatory action research project, in which we used agile methods to design and deploy an system to support 'agricultural information flow' for a cooperative of small farmers in rural India, we identify points of difference between the roles in standard descriptions of agile software methods and the roles as they emerged in our project. A key finding is the critical role play… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…community could experiment, discuss, document and record between workshops, with • the discussion and of culturally appropriate research ethics protocols, leading to the synthesis of tools, methods and ethics specific to their community, culture and concerns, and then • the exploration and documentation of the information needs and habits, the livelihoods, markets and occupations, the educational experiences and expectations; the infrastructure, access and environment; and of individuals and groups within the community [53], leading to • the selection, introduction, adaptation, evaluation and eventual integration of progressive digital learning tools and techniques, alongside training and supporting community members to populate, manage, curate, moderate and direct their own platform and space • feeding the evidence, analysis and synthesis through to the policy and funding communities in ways that challenge the current filters, skews and biases currently constraining their opinions and values. This differs from many earlier documented participative processes [54] in aiming to engage and empower communities, rather than deliver an artefact.…”
Section: Processmentioning
confidence: 61%
“…community could experiment, discuss, document and record between workshops, with • the discussion and of culturally appropriate research ethics protocols, leading to the synthesis of tools, methods and ethics specific to their community, culture and concerns, and then • the exploration and documentation of the information needs and habits, the livelihoods, markets and occupations, the educational experiences and expectations; the infrastructure, access and environment; and of individuals and groups within the community [53], leading to • the selection, introduction, adaptation, evaluation and eventual integration of progressive digital learning tools and techniques, alongside training and supporting community members to populate, manage, curate, moderate and direct their own platform and space • feeding the evidence, analysis and synthesis through to the policy and funding communities in ways that challenge the current filters, skews and biases currently constraining their opinions and values. This differs from many earlier documented participative processes [54] in aiming to engage and empower communities, rather than deliver an artefact.…”
Section: Processmentioning
confidence: 61%
“…There has been some initial work on agile as an ICT4D application development methodology (Dearden et al 2010, Iacucci 2012, Haikin 2013 but this now needs expanding beyond the ICT4D bubble to research agile as an approach to development projects and processes generally; overlapping with the development management agenda discussed above.…”
Section: Data Revolutionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As PD has moved outside the workplace, links to Participatory Education and Participatory Development have emerged. There have been wonderful DOI: 10.4018/ijskd.2014100104 cases of PD in a development context (Dearden & Rizvi, 2008a;Puri, Byrne, Nhampossa, & Quraishi, 2004). In addition, Dearden and Rizvi (2008b) have provided a rich comparison of Participatory Design and Participatory Development and how they might be used together.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%