Sustainable technology: The value of cultural interpreters

In my previous blog I introduced myself through my questioning of typical assumptions people make about ICT for community development. I also advocated the need for a sympathetic meeting of minds in ICT for development (ICT4D) efforts. In this blog I want to illustrate some practicalities of the intercultural meeting of minds in ICT4D policy and implementation.

Reflecting on some of the community development missions I was part of, I realised that it is very difficult for a community outsider to judge the specifics of the development needs a culturally different community might have. I also realised that typical development concepts such as poverty, sustainability and empowerment might imply something different to the community. The outsider often does not understand the difficulties and social intricacies of the community and its culture while different cultures and languages imply totally different views of reality and therefore a completely “foreign” or different value system and social fibre. It is, therefore, not fair towards the community if the outsider assumes that he or she has the understanding or know-how to prescribe how new ICTs should be implemented and also which values the community should subscribe to when they use and implement new technologies in their context. Ignoring this reality and enforcing “foreign” technology onto “unfamiliar” contexts, may, according to some social researchers, equate to abuse of that community and consequently have serious implications for sustainable empowerment.

Professor Rembrandt Klopper, a colleague of mine, highlighted three general approaches implementing technology in developing contexts evident today. The first is where Western models or models from developed countries are imposed on developing countries. The second approach is where developing countries aspire to Western models and the third is the consulting model where community participation takes place, community ownership is established and technology is implemented culturally and is contextually appropriate.

Several authors (eg Heeks [1] and Lewis [2]) have confirmed that the first and second approaches are doomed for failure due to its modernist “one-size-fits-all” and culturally insensitive stance. ICT4D implementation approaches such as these are often subconsciously applied by Eurocentric thinkers in development initiatives where the underlying belief that “when something is developed it is better” guides their efforts. Heeks refers to this as neo-liberalism “that allows no deviation”. It is where an invention of the “developed” is imposed on the “developing”. You might say that it could not be that bad. My response would be that you must just look at the reasons why ICT4D failures still outnumber success stories. I believe that the third general approach to ICT4D implementation is more sustainable and appropriate.

In an attempt to follow the consultation model to ICT4D, I believe that one should aim to identify cultural interpreters and community visionaries that will be able to receive and understand new technologies and then advise the “suppliers” of these technologies on the implementation thereof in their communities. In the following section I will present a scenario that illustrates this process, the potential difficulties that might arise and how community visionaries can follow-up on and ensure successful ICT4D efforts.

During a recent teacher-training course in basic ICT literacy, which our university facilitated in rural KZN, we also started a train-the-trainer initiative where a number of deserving course delegates were given the opportunity co-present the ICT course. As a result of the train-the-trainer initiative these community visionaries started to plan similar training for a number of health workers in a local organisation. As outsiders, we suggested that an accredited basic computer literacy course should be presented to the health workers. However, the visionaries, after a number of meetings with the locals actually opted for a pre-basic computer literacy course. My immediate reaction was that a recognised and certified training course would be much more “valuable” to these health workers. I queried their intentions and their response was that “they are not ready for basic computer literacy. They need an appreciation course that will introduce them to the computer”. I realised that my good intentions to present a fully accredited 30-hour “basic” computer course was not basic enough and I wouldn’t have realised that our efforts are going south if it wasn’t for these cultural interpreters. These visionaries have received the new technologies through a formal training course and have realised what it involves. Because they understand their community and the realities that they deal with, they can correctly judge that the technologies we as outsiders introduced to them are not appropriate and the receivers of these technologies are not ready for it. They consequently through their own initiative and vision devised a pre-basic computer training option that would take these ICT illiterate people from knowing absolutely nothing to knowing something. Had we not had the openness and had we not listened to the community visionaries, we would have probably exposed a number of nurses to IT trauma and dumped about R35 000 down the drain. We would have followed a recipe for culturally insensitive, if not abusive ICT implementation.

I believe that in order to implement ICT development policy one should identify community champions or cultural interpreters that will be able to translate the technology and its potential for their own people. I believe that the role of the community outsider wanting to participate in community development should be first and foremost identify capable community champions and cultural interpreters in the community. This requires the basic but unique skills of relationship building. The second step in this flexible process would be to introduce these potential visionaries to the new technologies or the development idea. The implementation and rollout of new technologies to the broader community should, however, be driven and owned by these community champions because they understand their community context, technology readiness levels and also how these technologies should be transferred to their own. From an outsider perspective it requires openness to deviation, openness to unexpected outcomes and results and good listening and waiting skills. Not nice if you have capitalist motives and deadlines!!

[1] Heeks, R. 2005. ICTs and the MDGs: on the Wrong Track?, i4d, February, http://www.i4donline.net/feb05/perspective.asp.
[2] Lewis, J. (Ed). 1994. World Mission: an analysis of the world Christian movement, 2nd edition. Pasadena, California: William Carey Library.