The Changing Narrative of Digital Development (ICT4D) – Integrations Globally and contributing to the T20 Taskforce on Inclusive Digital Transformation

Caroline Khene, Research Fellow and Digital Cluster Lead at the Institute of Development Studies and Secretary of IFIP 9.4, reflects on the changing narrative of the ICT4D field, in the light of activity with the Task Force 5 on Inclusive Digital Transformation.

The narrative is changing in our field, with some people questioning whether ICT4D matters, exists, or still has a research agenda. When I started researching in this field as an undergraduate student in South Africa, the term ICT4D was frowned upon in my discipline – as not being part of information systems – “ICT4D is not Information Systems” is what I was often told…how ironic! My research career began in South Africa, at a time when it was difficult to mainstream the concept in our discipline, making it challenging to advocate for it in teaching curriculum and research. Interestingly, although not surprising, I also learned of the challenge ICT4D researchers in the north also experienced, with debates around approaches applied, methodologies, relevance, and its position in information systems and related disciplines. Despite these challenges, supportive networks such as SIGGLOBDev, IFIP 9.4, IDIA, and later the ICTD Conference began to emerge, where research around the field started to gain prominence and open debates around the value of digital technology in addressing pressing issues in international development. The growth and interest of ‘digital’ in international development, later resulted in questions around, ‘whose design, whose innovation, whose decision, whose perspective of impact’, as several issues emerged around sustainability/continuity of digital programmes, digital ethics and rights, data justice, surveillance capitalism – just to name a few. Furthermore, as Low-Middle-Income-Countries (LMICs) are continuously targeted for investment by global powers from the US, Europe and China, this puts into question top-down approaches, with no realistic-inclusive-representative deliberation in place around how digitalisation should unfold within their context. Techno-feudalism is now at bay, placing LMICs in problematic positions of behavioural-cultural lockdown, to not claim the cultures and histories that should shape digital innovation in their context.

“We need to be more critical”. Taking a critical approach is not new to the ICT4D field, with several researchers embracing critical theory, paradigms, and philosophical approaches in how one ‘does’ research. This has been a valuable realisation in our research community, as researchers become more ‘aware’ of their influence, and inserts of power that manifest in digital development research and initiatives. I attended the IFIP WG 8.2 and WG 9.4 Joint Working Group Conference, in Hyderabad, India, in December 2023. The conference theme, as a legacy to the late Bruno Latour and his work, centered on globalisation, inequity, and climate change. The emergent discussions at the conference converged around deliberative power in different ways, and what it should mean in relation to ‘how’ power transitions should occur in south contexts. Keynotes by Janaki Srinavasan and Bobby Banerjee touched on the place of history and politics in researching the information age, and political ontologies of sustainability in decolonising climate change. A different kind of ‘critical’ continues to gain prominence, which should not only rest in interpretations of the researcher, but critical that is emancipatory for the ‘researched’ to collaboratively become the ‘researcher’, in democratic processes of embedding and driving local ontologies.

So ICT4D – does it have an agenda, has it disappeared? No it hasn’t – it has just become integrated into different discussions shaping the digital economy. Our field applies not only to LMIC but globally in varied contexts, including that of high-income countries – something I have seen and experienced moving from South Africa to the UK. What needs to be encouraged is the participation of new voices and ontologies in global spaces of influence, like the G20 intergovernmental forum comprising of 20 sovereign countries shaping agendas for the global economy. The T20 exists as an engagement group that produces, discusses, consolidates and presents ideas to the G20 for addressing emerging global challenges. Its members are local and international representatives of think tanks and research institutions, facilitating the contribution of emergent ideas through policy briefs.  This year, Brazil holds the presidency for the G20, with the T20 consisting of 6 Task Forces:

1. TF01: Fighting inequalities, poverty, and hunger.
2. TF02: Sustainable climate action and inclusive just energy transitions.
3. TF03: Reforming the international financial architecture.
4. TF04: Trade and investment for sustainable and inclusive growth.
5. TF05: Inclusive digital transformation.
6. TF06: Strengthening multilateralism and global governance.

I am pleased to be member of Task Force 5 on Inclusive Digital Transformation, which consists of 6 significant focus areas: 

1. Digital Inclusion and Meaningful Universal Connectivity
2. Digital Transformation and Platformization of Public Services
3. Digital Integrity, Data Protection, and Cybersecurity
4. New Digital Technologies for SDGs and Decent Work
5. Challenges, Opportunities, and Governance of Artificial Intelligence
6. Global Digital Governance and Regulation of Digital Platforms

Each focus area resonates with research previously developed and continuing in the field of ICT4D or digital development. The T20 currently has an open Call for Policy Brief Abstracts, with a deadline of 5 February 2024. I would like to encourage scholars and researchers globally, to contribute policy briefs shaping ideas for addressing global development challenges. Contributors are encouraged to collaborate with other think tanks or research institutions from at least 2 different countries (at least one country should be a G20 member). As the next G20 Presidency will move to South Africa next year, we also particularly encourage submissions from the African continent.

This year, I am also honoured to have been appointed as secretary for IFIP 9.4, supporting our new Chair Dr Silvia Masiero. My hope is to enable wider collaboration and sharing of insights from working group members and invited contributors, contributing to present and future research agendas and debates shaping and evolving our field. Silvia started this amazing blog, and I hope to continue her great work and enthusiasm in sharing knowledge and fostering new collaborations.

The 18th IFIP Working Group 9.4 Conference on the Implications of Information and Communication Technologies for Development

20-22 May 2024, Cape Town, South Africa

Theme: Reshaping an Unequal World Through Social Justice and Digital Technologies

In a world where digital technologies have become the linchpin of global progress, a stark reality has emerged: a society characterised by inequalities and injustice. The glaring inequality in the distribution of essential resources, as exemplified by the unequal access to COVID-19 vaccines, was underscored by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa during the New Global Financing Pact summit in Paris, France, in June 2023. It serves as a reminder of the enduring disparities that define our world.

Digital technologies remain a force with the potential to disrupt existing power structures and democratise access to opportunities. They have empowered communities to engage in social, political, and economic spheres that were once out of reach. The impact of digital technologies has extended to catalysing global social justice movements and creating platforms for marginalised voices. Yet, the transformative potential of technology is nuanced and replete with complexities.

The 17th Working Group 9.4 Conference of the International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP WG 9.4) gathers scholars and practitioners dealing with how ICT affects social development. The conference theme, “Reshaping an Unequal World Through Social Justice and Digital Technologies,” aims to initiate the journey to explore digital technology’s multifaceted role in forging a more equitable and just world. The conference aims to provide a platform for rigorous discourse, innovative solutions, and collaborative endeavours that leverage the potential of digital technologies to tackle global inequalities and champion social justice.

We invite you to submit full research papers and research-in-progress (RIP) papers to the 17th International Conference on the The Implications of Information and Digital Technologies for Development. Papers are invited to be submitted to the following 15 tracks. Track 12 welcomes research papers and RIPs in indigenous African languages related to the conference theme in general. RIPs in English should be submitted to all other tracks.

Conference Website: https://sites.google.com/view/ifip94capetown2024/home

Conference Tracks

1. Arfiticial Intelligence, Inequalities, and Human Rights

2. Technology & Social Justice

3. Diverse and Inclusive Digital Transformation

4. ICT in Displacement and Conflict Zones: Ideas, Disconnects, & Innovations

5. Giving Voice to Marginalised Perspectives in IS Research

6. Human-Computer Interaction for Ethical Value Exchange and Social Inclusion

7. Smart Collaborations & Crowdsourcing

8. Philosophical, Theoretical and Methodological Approaches to Researching ICT4D

9. ICT Curriculum and Education 10. Information and Computer Security

11. Digital Inclusion through e-Government

12. Research in Indigenous African Languages

13. Digitalisation for Indigenous Emancipation

14. Digital Platforms in the Global South

15. General Track

Important Dates

Submission deadline: 22 November 2023

Decision notification: 15 January 2024

Submission of final (revised) papers: 15 February 2024

Paper submission: https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=ifipwg94capetown

A Slam Session for Change

On 13 June 2023, IFIP Working Groups 9.4 and 9.5 have joined forces in convening a workshop titled “Current Issues in the Digital Society”. The workshop was organised as a pre-conference session of the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), which took place in Kristiansand, Norway.

The workshop has been a fantastic occasion for two Working Groups under IFIP Technical Committee 9, centred on ICT and Society, to explore the many synergies across its members. IFIP WG 9.4 on the Implications of Information and Communication Technologies for Development works on issues connected to ICT for Development (ICT4D), as well as its present-day ramification on topics including design ethics, data justice and surveillance. IFIP WG 9.5 on Our Digital Lives views digital technologies as intertwined with everyday life, and explores the multiple facets of this intertwinement. While the two groups have collaborated before, for example with the Our Digital Lives track held during the IFIP 9.4 Virtual Conference, the workshop was our first occasion to create a shared event appealing to ECIS participants, but also to our memberships at large, and beyond it.

The workshop has accepted 23 research abstracts, centered on themes that engage diverse aspects around the topic of Current Issues in the Digital Society. In just one day we have had the chance to learn about a wide variety of themes: digital platform ecosystems; informational injustices; digital identity; inequality in digital societies; open banking and financial inclusion just to name a few. The hybrid format, allowing for remote participation through the day, has ensured the possibility for colleagues to join in from multiple sites worldwide, with presenters covering a spectrum from Thailand to eastern California. Splendid technical assistance from ECIS has made this all possible, and we are extremely grateful for the logistical assistance we received!

The real heart of the workshop consisted in the problematisation – and in a way, revolution – of the core presentation format, conventionally structured around slide-based presentations and a Q&A. To maximise interactivity and creative generation of ideas, we have experimented with a new format: presentations were structured around four slam sessions, in which presenters have had the chance to convey their research in the way they preferred. With sessions loosely centred around thematic cores, the slam format has resulted in a proper flourishing of creativity. Over just one day we have heard research conveyed through poems, photostories, memes, startup pitches, and even a dance-based presentation (yes!). Experimenting with the slam session format has been a fantastic form of liberation from the conventional structure of workshops, and one that democratised the convening of research by infusing freedom in the very way this is structured. Doing so has also been an important learning occasion for all of us, experimenting with novel ways to perform the reporting that is so central to our research works.

As organisers, we are extremely thankful and looking forward to building on the constructive feedback that participants have given us on the workshop. We look forward to many more occasions to build activities together!

Are social media and false news threatening democracy?

Around the world, there are increasing concerns that fake news threaten democracy. In this article, Ana Paula Tavares argues that while fake news is not a new phenomenon it has gained momentum with the rise of new technologies, smartphones, and social media platforms that expanded human communication capacity. “Real news”, she argues, is not coming back in any tangible way in today’s world. With a high share of the population denying professionally reported news sources and relying on confirmation bias, it is fundamental to establish measures to protect democracy.

Around the world, there are increasing concerns that fake news threaten democracy. Recent research shows that democracy is less likely to survive in a poor information environment. In fact, research suggests that people share information because of three main reasons: self-enhancement (appearing expert), pro-social (engaging or feeling part of a community), and altruism (helping others). While the motivations to share information are genuine, information literacy and information technology skills play a role in determining the sharing of fake news. Precisely, experienced users with critical collective consciousness seem to be more aware of the information dissemination dynamics on social media limiting the spread of fake news through these platforms.

But what is misinformation? And what are fake news? Misinformation is defined as false or inaccurate information or information whose purpose is to deliberately mislead but the people who share it do not mean harm. The term fake news, which has become a major phenomenon with the rise of the Internet, refers to the mass creation and spreading of false information to intentionally distort facts. This is done on purpose to attract, deceive, misinform and mislead audiences, manipulate public opinion, and discredit or exalt an institution or a person to obtain economic and political gain.

Is fake news a new phenomenon?

Not at all. Fake news has been around since news become a concept more than 500 years ago with the invention of print. Fake news has tended to be sensationalist and it has often provoked violence (think about the nazi propaganda or news about the discovery of life on the moon). Over the past few years, fake news gained ground worldwide during political events such as the 2016 US Presidential Elections, where candidates used the term against their opponents to disqualify information that favored their candidacy. In the same vein, the Brexit referendum in the UK was first shaped by lies spread by xenophobes and right-wing activists. The fake news phenomena also influenced the 2018 Brazilian Presidential Elections with extreme right-wing viral activities on social media to manipulate the population. In Brazil, a ‘Parliamentary Commission on Fake News Investigation’ was created in the Congress in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic to investigate the spread of fake news about the coronavirus; this has been spread with the aim of discrediting science and global health institutions.

Social media and fake news: The danger zone

Why has the fake news phenomenon gained momentum? The rise of new technologies, smartphones, and digital platforms expanded human communication capacity. Over 4.5 billion people use social media worldwide. This means 59% of the world population is connected to at least one social media app. Social media has brought us many benefits like faster and easier communication, brand promotions, customer feedback, digital space for debates and civil rights protests. However, it has also several disadvantages like cyberbullying, social anxiety, depression, and fake news.

The spread of fake news has led to an alarming loss of confidence in institutions, such as the press, science, and intellectual groups. During the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, information and guidelines that contradicted scientific knowledge spread fear and impacted the alleviation of the pandemic especially in developing regions.

Source: Reuters Institute Digital News Report

Fake news is a threat to democracy and peace

Trust in unknown virtual sources of information is an extremely relevant concern. People believe in personal, independent, algorithmic recommendations more than in someone’s recommendation (to know more read the book Surveillance Capitalism). With the speed and increasing flow of information, people only have access to part of the story, which prevents them from accessing more diverse sources of news. This issue is boosted by social polarization and reinforced by algorithms that amplify specific messages among people who have similar ideas (to dig deep watch the documentary Coded bias). Most citizens are unable to assess which digital information is meaningful and reliable. This shows their lack of digital awareness to identify fake news and engage in reliable online democratic dialogues.

This virtual space allows fake news to be used as a tool for populism, antisemitism, xenophobia, and other extreme political views. Some examples are Russia’s disinformation narratives about the Ukraine war, the Covid-19 pandemic denial, the climate change among many others. Above all, it threatens democracy as social media is being used to harass opponents, create chaos, and manipulate public discourse. Maria Ressa from the Philippines and Dmitry Muratov from Russia received the Nobel Peace Prize 2021 for safeguarding freedom of expression, a precondition for democracy and lasting peace.

“Real news” is not coming back in any tangible way in today’s world. With a high share of the population denying professionally reported news sources and relying on confirmation bias, it is fundamental to establish measures to protect democracy. Fact-checking, media literacy interventions and adequate regulations are some of the measures to develop a transparent, inclusive, and empowered society. While research is conducted to understand the mechanisms behind the fake news dissemination process and journalists around the world fight for freedom of expression, I leave you with a reflection from the Never Take It song by Twenty-one Pilots: “Now that they know information is just a currency and nothing more. Keep the truth in quotations. ‘Cause they keep lying through their fake teeth…they’re trying hard to weaponize, you and I. W​e’ll never take it.” The message reinforces the need to promote debates, participation, and empowerment of civil society to protect democracy.

Ana Paula dos Santos Tavares is Researcher at Getulio Vargas Foundation in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Her research is centered on the use of digital transformation for societal good. She is interested in how ICTs could address societal challenges, such as sustainable development, well-being, and emancipation. Her main topics of interest are digital transformation, ICT4D, digital inclusion, digital innovation, and social media. She is currently conducting research on the impact of digital transformation among vulnerable groups in Brazil.

ICTD Researchers – Where is the Natural Environment?

Soumyo Das (Emlyon Business School) reflects on the global injustice of the climate crisis, whose effects are disproportionately hitting the Global South. What relationships exist between ICTs, socio-economic development goals, and the natural environment?

The 2022 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report tells a tale, while anticipated, finally painted, and marked as ‘with high confidence’. Human-induced environmental change has led to widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people and has disproportionately affected those in the Global South (ibid.). The observed effects are particularly visible across tracts of South & South-East Asia, Africa, and Latin America, with significant impact on food chains, public health, human- & animal-migration and displacement patterns, and damages to key economic sectors (ibid.).

While such human-induced environmental changes are driven by a plethora of processes, ICTs, through different means across its life cycle, play a significant contributing factor. The negative effect in the production phase is driven by the process of, and materials used, in the development of such technologies. Furthermore, since most ICTs are produced within a concentrated geographic region, its distribution involves non-renewable energy-consuming global supply chains. The aspect of energy consumption is further exacerbated in its use. As a minute observation in relation to the UN’s vision of the use of ICTs for achieving SDGs, the collection and processing of human data for purposes of monitoring SDG achievement has been vocalised for several cases, for example, public health. While the ethical, legal, and social implications for the same are immense, from a purely technical perspective, it involves the storage and analysis of data within technical infrastructures which are well documented to be energy inefficient and with significant environmental impact. It is also well reported that ICTs carry short product life cycles, which ultimately contribute to non-biodegradable and potentially toxic e-waste.

Irrespective of such forecasts and readily available statistics, Governments across the world are increasingly investing in the use of ICTs to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in line with UN’s vision of using ICTs as enablers to accelerate the achievement of the 17 SDGs. While the impact of ICTs used for the purpose of achieving socio-economic growth is perhaps miniscule in comparison to the global use of ICTs for individual consumption and to drive economic processes, it still leaves behind a considerable environmental footprint. The issue is furthermore critical for ICTD researchers, as the environmental implications of production, use, and disposal of ICTs are much higher in the Global South; furthermore, the use of ICTs for SDGs are concentrated in the Global South, which implies that the environmental implications of the same would be concentrated within the same geographic boundaries.

Irrespective, research has rarely captured the triangular relationship between ICTs, socio-economic development goals, and the natural environment. The implications of the relationship, however, is quite broad, and I take the case of public health (UN-SDG#3: Good Health & Well-Being), and of e-waste to substantiate my argument. On one hand, governments across the Global South are increasingly using ICTs to achieve positive public health outcomes, and on the other, it has well documented that the state of the natural environment has a strong bearing on human and veterinary health. However, studies show that the end-of-life-cycle outcome of most ICTs, i.e., e-waste, is a major contributor to environmental degradation, in the form of non-biodegradable toxic waste, with public health implications.

The environmental implications reflect social forces at play. From a Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) perspective, it reflects social choices in the use of certain physical and chemical materials in the design and development of the ICTs (non-biodegradable & chemically toxic in nature). Furthermore, the short-life cycles – the reason why most ICTs ends up being non-usable after a point of time, is discarded, and ends up being e-waste – is a material reflection of the planned obsolescence ideology of ICT ideation and design stakeholders. It could also reflect changes in policy approaches, in changing the kind of ICTs used to achieve a particular socio-economic goals purpose – as is reflected in continual changes in the type of e-POS machines used for delivering public welfare services in India over a 10-year period.

Irrespective of the social force at play, e-waste contributes to significant environmental damages and it is well documented that it is associated with negative birth outcomes, changes in lung & respiratory functions, damages to DNA, hormonal disorders, and carcinogenic outcomes. And yet, every year, there is a significant rise in the volume of e-waste generated – rising annually by 21% in between 2014 and 2019, with the vast majority being dumped in in low- or middle-income countries.

It therefore becomes a recursive ailment, if the very same ICTs used to achieve good health ends up being a contributing factor to negative health outcomes. As such, the environmental implications of the ICTs used to achieve socio-economic goals recursively impacts the very same* Social Development Goals which the ICTs tries to address in the first place.

For those policymakers, while governments and international organizations need to rethink about prescribing ICTs as the elixir for any-and-every socio-economic ailment in the first place, it needs to be more cognizant about the role played by the natural environment on the state of society and the economy, and the impact of ICTs on it. For researchers, the article is an attempt to re-hash and re-highlight the fact that ICTD research has focussed largely on socio-economic goals, and there exists a lack of studies which has a focus on the natural environment. Environmental goals too are important for sustainable futures, and this article is a call for ICTD researchers, policymakers, and designers to add the natural environment in the equation of the study of ICTs and socio-economic development.

*Maybe not the same SDG cluster, perhaps a different one, but in essence, to the larger SDG goals.

About the Author: Soumyo Das is a Researcher at Emlyon Business School. His research focusses on sustainable management & innovation, and was formerly associated with the Centre for IT & Public Policy at IIIT Bangalore as an ICTD scholar. He can be reached at das (at) em-lyon.com, or on Twitter at @soumyoin.

Rethinking ICT4D Research Through the Pillars of Context, Resilience, and Sustainability

By: Muluneh Atinaf, IT-Doctoral Program, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,                   mulunehatinaf@yahoo.com

ICT4D research has addressed critical individual, organizational, and societal issues progressively. The nature of problems is also being changing from time to time challenging the suitability of the solutions and the field to address current and emergent problems with older assumptions. Hence, the field enquires to rethink and reframe research in ICT4D to be framed and reflect justice, apply multi-theoretical approaches, and give attention to the indigenous understanding of ICTs. This piece focuses on one of the multi-theoretical approaches in ICT4D research. Among the multi-theoretical approaches to consider is looking at the multiple concepts that have gained attention and become a trend for ICT4D research. Context, resilience, and sustainability are among the concepts gaining attention and becoming the building blocks of ICT4D research.

It is better to look into each of the concepts before discussing how the triple concepts relate and how they can be investigated together in an ICT4D research. Context refers to the processes and conditions other than the constituent causal sociomaterial interactions of information systems (IS) phenomena that affect their formation and are affected by them. Resilience is the ability of a system to perform its objectives to continue to thrive in the face of challenges. However, context-based research rarely goes beyond understanding the lived experiences of stakeholders and existing IS artifacts to inform resilience and sustainability of interventions. The development practice is challenged by multiple and overlapping treats. Moreover, the local communities have differences in their capabilities such as access to infrastructure including computing devices, digital literacy, and cognitive gaps to apply the information received. Therefore, ignoring context within such local development realities and stakeholders’ conditions while designing resilient IS will not lead to sustainability of the interventions. ICT4D research should try to look into the three pillars of ICT4D research from the socio-technical perspective. However, common agreement is lacking on what constitutes resilience for development projects. Sustainability in this piece refers to enduring those interventions, specifically the ICT4D interventions in the development arena, and keeping target users to continue using the interventions. From the above definitions one can understand that resilience maintains the functions and operations of a system (both information system and the contexts of the local development practices) during stress through unlocking potential from the technology or human potential. In fact, context is a methodological challenge in ICT4D research and mainstream IS research. Relatively, context and sustainability are well-researched both in the ICT4D and mainstream IS research. Given the above conceptualizations, ICT4D research is still criticized as a-contextual, inadequately considering the value-adding context-based potentials of stakeholders, techno-centric study (Chigona et al, 2009) that leads to ICT4D failures, and limiting theorizing in ICT4D.

Therefore, research applying ICT for development goals needs to deeply investigate the historical processes of the context with their social practices and processes for the success of the interventions and the contexts that enable such success. ICT itself is part of the context encompassing the conditions and processes in the environment. The question is then how do the triple concepts of context, resilience, and sustainability relate to each other? How does one inform the other or is informed by the other?

Addressing this inquiry needs to develop understanding on each of the concepts and how individual concepts or a group of concepts can enable/inform the other. It is known from previous research that ICT4D interventions are embedded in a system, a network, a project, or a social structure where the resources that define the local contexts and enable resilient communities are distributed within these systems and structures. Resilience and sustainability are sometimes treated as synonyms looking at the points of learning taking place between the two concepts however there is a clear difference between the two concepts. In practice they are different in that resilience focuses on the regeneration of resources and sustainability focuses on supplying the resources. Therefore, resilience becomes the core issue that can contribute both to sustaining the interventions and the local practices of the communities. Hence, resources can be regenerated not only from the IS infrastructure but also from the practices of the local development communities. The community’s local development practices involve their daily development practices and the IS applied to support their development practices.

This informs the socio-technical nature of both the development practices and the regeneration of resources. This is an implication that resilience is socio-technical. The socio-technical nature of an information system was also accepted long ago. Therefore, both context and resilience are socio-technical. Hence, the analysis of these two concepts that are gaining attention by the ICT4D research should be approached from the socio-technical perspective. The socio-technical dimension involves people, tasks/processes, structure, technology, and data. The fact that resources are distributed in a system, networks, projects, or social structures, and development is refers to the beneficiaries imply both context and resilience are socio-technical and hence sustainability is socio-technical too. Therefore, resilience should be informed from the socio-technical context which in turn helps maintaining the functions and operations of the local development practices to meet the requirements of the local beneficiaries in a way that the two can lead to sustainable ICT4D interventions. Further information on the conceptual relationships established from the three conceptual pillars can be explored in the paper at the IFIP WG 9.4 2022 Conference Proceeding and the empirical evidence to this can be accessed in the forthcoming paper.

CALL FOR PANELS: IFIP 9.4 CONFERENCE, 25-27 MAY 2022

We are inviting proposals for panel presentations on topics relevant to the IFIP 9.4 community and broadly in keeping with the conference theme:  Freedom and Social Inclusion in a Connected World.

A panel should aim to present a variety of views on a topical issue in the ICT4D field, to generate debate amongst the panellists and to engage the audience in that debate.  Thus, there should be potential for different positions to be put forward for the chosen topic and the proposal should make it clear how the panel will present these different positions.  Good candidates for panel topics would be those arising from controversies, academic debates, new research agendas, global/geopolitical challenges, innovations and transformational technological advances and so forth.

The panel proposals will be reviewed by the Programme Chairs taking into account: a panel topic that will attract an audience, a panel composition that offers a variety of voices, and a panel format that will encourage audience participation.

Panel proposals should conform to the following guidelines:

• Maximum of three A4 pages in length, consisting of:
  • An introduction to the panel topic demonstrating its importance to the field
  • An exposition of the varying positions held on the topic and how these engender debate
  • A section with short biographies (max. 100 words) of each panellist
  • A references section
• Each panel should comprise a moderator and a maximum of 4 panellists
• The panel format should aim to complete all panellists’ debate and audience engagement in 90 minutes, with at least 30 minutes for audience engagement

Should the panel proposal be accepted, it would be expected that all panellists should commit to attending the conference.

Panel proposals should be submitted no later than 14^th March 2022 to the programme chairs, using our email addresses below.  Acceptance decisions of panel proposals will take place on 15^th April 2022.

Programme Chairs

Pamela Abbott (p.y.abbott@sheffield.ac.uk), Jose-Antonio Robles (jrobles@esan.edu.pe), Yingqin Zheng (Yingqin.Zheng@rhul.ac.uk) 

A year of resilience: IFIP 9.4 in 2021

The continuation of the global COVID-19 pandemic has marked our year at IFIP 9.4. With the shift to an online format for our events, as well as transformations affecting the conduct of fieldwork and our members’ teaching and learning activities, the year has marked even more deeply the changes started in 2020. Caring responsibilities, health concerns and the new challenges brought by these have led many of us to a rediscussion of the essential aspects of our academic roles.

Accommodating the change has meant many actions. One was readaptation of the core event – the IFIP 9.4 conference – that constitutes the lifeblood of our work as community. On 26-28 May 2021, the First IFIP 9.4 Virtual Conference has taken place, in the same dates originally planned for our physical convening in Lima. Programmatically titled “Resilient ICT4D”, the conference has sought to leverage the online format to recreate the atmosphere of vibrant and fruitful interaction that characterised our physical convenings since IFIP 9.4 was established. It has, at the same time, sought to move resilience from a conference theme to a feature of organisation of the event itself. This has meant using the online format to pursue objectives of inclusion and open communication that characterise the spirit of IFIP 9.4.

The event began with a PhD day where, by choice, we adopted a non-capped approach to participation. This creates an alternative to the model of doctoral consortia in our parent field: in Information Systems, such consortia are characterised by a capped number of participants, subjected or not to a fee for participation. Beyond the no-fee model, we also decided not to cap participation: using the virtual means, it has been possible to match 74 participants, based in 27 countries, with 24 mentors who volunteered their time and expertise to mentor such a big group of early-career researchers. Through rotation across Zoom tables, fruitful mentoring conversations have demonstrated the power of an inclusive PhD day, where the absence of caps and fees has left room to enriching and insightful discussions.

Doctoral consortia also usually involve faculty panels, discussing themes including strategies for publishing and progressing in the career. Even to this model, the IFIP 9.4 PhD day has proposed a constructive alternative. The event has featured two panels: in the first one, titled “Lessons from the PhD Journey”, five colleagues close to completion of their PhD (or who just finished) shared with the group what they saw as the most useful learnings through the doctoral journey. In the second, titled “Academic Careers… With a Human Face”, four colleagues shared (not the best strategies to publish more and more, but) their views of how to live the academic journey in a human way, friendly to mental and physical health and mindful of the ethical aspects of the job. Out of many topics that emerged, remarks on intersecting form of bias in key aspects of the academic profession have triggered a collective reflection on how such biases can be recognised and tackled.

The IFIP 9.4 Virtual Conference has followed the PhD day. With the choice of not having a physical host, the conference has proposed a collective governance model: decision-making was conducted by 32 track chairs, based across 14 countries and representing 27 different universities. The collective has taken all decisions – conference format; keynote invitations; panel organisation; social event – in the making of the conference, showing the value of collective decision-making in mirroring the spirit of IFIP 9.4. In addition, the conference chose a no-fee format and published open-access proceedings, leaving to the authors the choice on how to evolve the 82 papers presented in the event.

Importantly, the 13 tracks in the IFIP 9.4 Virtual Conference have reflect not only the continued relevance of core themes (resilience building; digital platforms; ICTs for public health, and more) for the community, but also the emergence of new themes: for the first time the conference featured a track on data justice, one on the role of ICTs in social justice, and one on feminist and queer approaches to ICT4D, which has inspired a Special Issue Call for Papers in Information Technology for Development. A track has underscored the continued interest of IFIP 9.4 towards indigenous theory, and new track ideas (e.g. a track on “digital authoritarianism and fundamentalism: problems and solutions”) have also emerged. Four panels have also brought new themes to our community: open data governance in the Global South, digital labour in the Global South, deconstructing notions of resilience, and feminist approaches to ICT4D have fostered important discussions. Three extremely insightful keynotes by Shirin Madon, Sajda Qureshi and Anita Gurumurthy have brought important themes to the attention of a wide audience of 486 registered participants.

As we look back to the activities conducted in 2021, it is important to note how these inspire the very substantial work that is yet to come. Tracks from IFIP 9.4 conferences continue to inspire Special Issues in the journals of the field: the recent Information Systems Journal Special Issue 31(6) is a combined Special Issue on Indigenous Theory and Digital Platforms for Development, both of which were tracks at the IFIP 9.4 2019 Conference in Dar el Salaam. Papers in such Special Issues – and beyond them, as IFIP 9.4 papers are further developed into journal publications – continue to inform the debates of the discipline, such as the turn of digital platforms literature towards issues of development discussed in the related Special Issue launch. New Special Issue Calls, such as the ISJ Call for Papers on Digital Transformation in Latin America: Challenges and Opportunities and the ITD Call for Papers on Understanding Local Social Processes in ICT4D Research, have been presented in our Conference, generating fruitful debate between editors and potential authors. In addition, our Conference has hosted the launch of a MIS Quarterly Special Issue on Social Justice, a launch in which the Editors have remarked the strong synergies between the journal and our activities at IFIP 9.4.

Looking forward means, first and foremost, looking at future events and ways to keep the lifeblood of IFIP 9.4 alive and active despite the challenges of the continued global pandemic. Our next IFIP 9.4 Conference, which will take place on 25-27 May 2022, will keep a virtual format. The Conference adopts a multilingual format – with tracks in English, Spanish and Portuguese – and despite our inability to be physically in Lima as originally planned, will constitute a large convening where important discussions of ICT4D will be continued. The event, as well as the activities yet to come and be planned for 2022, will mirror the resilient spirit of the IFIP 9.4 community: a spirit of openness, interactivity, and willingness to advance together the ICT4D debate.

To all our members and readers, the happiest of holidays, and best wishes for a happy 2022!

Silvia Masiero

Secretary, IFIP WG 9.4

Feminist and Queer Approaches to ICT4D: From a Conference Track to a Community Conversation

The First IFIP 9.4 Virtual Conference, held on 26-28 May, featured, for the first time, a track on Feminist and Queer Approaches to Information Systems in Developing Countries. Our stance as Track Chairs is that, in a pluriversal community of ICT4D researchers like IFIP 9.4, the track was highly needed for several reasons. One of the mandates of IFIP 9.4, as per the Aims and Scope of the Working Group, is “to establish international collaboration networks of researchers and practitioners interested in the use of information and digital technology for addressing the complex and pressing problems of development in society”. It is, in our view as Track Chairs, not possible to view such a mandate in isolation from the systemic issues that feminist and queer approaches capture, and this needs to be put into explicit relation with the themes and topics of ICT4D.

In addition, such issues are characterised by cross-contextual continuities of gender bias, disempowerment, and activist responses, that the papers presented in the track have illustrated under different perspectives and across global contexts. While presenting a strong common matrix, the issues in question reveal contextual specificities that found a space for voicing and discussion in the conference track, bringing up important themes of feminist and queer research. This gave attendees the opportunity to become aware of issues ranging from gender violence in Peru to male guardianship in Saudi Arabia, the risks of digital contact tracing for LGBTQIA+ communities, frameworks for critical analysis of ICT4D for women, gender data for development and the inequities of participation in Bangladesh, and gender bias in citations in information systems research. Such a pluriversal conversation afforded the chance to explicitly connect feminist and queer research to IFIP 9.4, marking the beginning of a conversation that, already ongoing in fields from HCI to design science, is very strongly needed in the IFIP 9.4 community.

In Women’s Solidarity and Social Media: Sisterhood Concept in #LasRespondonas, a Facebook group in Peru, Juan Fernando Bossio and Illari Diez note that in the fight against gender violence and exclusion, several feminist groups have emerged on social media to share information, debate, denounce, organise, and provide help. The authors saw women’s solidarity as one of the main ingredients of that process. The paper analyses the meaning of female solidarity, sisterhood or sororidad, as a feminist political concept among members of one feminist Facebook group in Peru. As in offline spaces, sisterhood is conceived in two ways: support and solidarity relationships; and as a political aspect of feminism. Its amplitude reflects the diversity of feminist movements in Latin America. Related to technology, the case shows how communities appropriate technologies for their own interests, provides an understanding of the characteristics of online/virtual communities, and shows an increase in the use of digital platforms as a political terrain for activism. Finally, as patriarchy is a focal point of feminist theory, sisterhood was found to be central to feminist practice.

In The Ethical Implications of Digital Contact Tracing for LGBTQIA+ Communities, Izak van Zyl and Nyx McLean argue that the technological containment strategies around the COVID-19 pandemic create serious implications for vulnerable populations in the LGBTQIA+ community. They state that digital contact tracing, driven by Big Tech as “self-proclaimed” health policymakers, leaves untenable room for exploitation and harm. This is especially the case for LGBTQIA+ persons, who may be in physical danger should their whereabouts, identities, or personal views be exposed. As the authors continue to argue, the widespread trade-off between individual privacy (or freedom) and public health is unjust in the broader context of marginalisation, and further disenfranchises those at the peripheries of society. A critical intersectional feminist approach can mitigate some of these concerns by proposing solutions that are more equal, inclusive, and socially just. Such an approach, informed by a feminist ethics of care, is transparent, user-centric, and sensitive to volatile political and cultural dynamics. As academics in this space, the authors encourage future research that seeks to operationalise a critical intersectional feminism in the context of public health.

In M-Government, Wilaya, and Women’s Empowerment in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,  Norah Alotaibi, Salihu Dasuki and Efpraxia Zamani employ the key concepts of Sen’s Capability Approach (CA) to understand how m-government services in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have provided opportunities for women to become empowered. Findings indicate that m-government contributes towards women’s empowerment by providing opportunities to participate in social and economic activities. However, there are also key social and cultural factors that impede the use of m-government services for empowerment, and the authors found these to include religious beliefs, Saudi traditions and customs, and husbands’ jealousy. The study makes some important contributions to theory and practice by being the first study to focus on the use that Saudi women make of the opportunities now available to them to access government services through m-government applications and to address the cultural barriers which may function to prevent their access.

In For Better or For Worse? A Critical Framework of ICT4D for Women, Abhipsa Pal and Rahul De’ note that a critical analysis reveals that as ICT diffusion widens, there is a persistent threat of widening the gender-based digital divide which exposes women to online sexual abuse, predominantly in developing countries characterised by the gendered nature of the social structure. Instead of accepting ICT as a facilitator of women empowerment, the authors develop a critical research framework for a gender-focused examination of ICT4D studies. Using the critical research framework developed, they investigate past ICT4D initiatives and artefacts from the literature and draw critical conclusions of its benefits and issues. The study encourages future ICT4D research to investigate areas of gender discrimination and understand the role of ICTs in a critical light.

In Gender Data 4 Girls?: A Postcolonial Feminist Participatory Study in Bangladesh, Isobel Talks observes that critical empirical and theoretical investigations into gender data for development policy and practice are lacking. Postcolonial feminist theory has long provided a critical lens through which to analyse international development projects that target women in the majority world, however postcolonial feminism remains underutilised for critically investigating data for development projects. Her paper addresses these gaps through presenting the findings from a participatory action research project with young women involved in a gender data for development project in Bangladesh. Echoing postcolonial feminist concerns with development, the ‘DataGirls’ had some concerns that data was being extracted from their communities, representing the priorities of external NGOs to a greater extent than their own. However, through collaborating to develop and deliver community events on child marriage with the ‘DataGirls’, the research demonstrates that participatory approaches can address some postcolonial feminist criticisms of (data for) development, by ensuring that gender data is enacted by and for majority world women rather than Western development institutions.

Finally, in Assessing Gender Bias in the Information Systems Field: An Analysis of the Impact on Citations, Silvia Masiero and Aleksi Aaltonen note the lack of studies of gender bias in the academic field of Information Systems, which is surprising especially in the light of the proliferation of such studies in the Science, Technology, Mathematics and Technology (STEM) disciplines. To assess potential gender bias in the field, this paper outlines a study to estimate the impact of scholarly citations that female Information Systems academics accumulate vis-à-vis their male colleagues. Drawing on a scientometric study of the 7,260 papers published in the most prestigious IS journals (known as the AIS Basket of Eight), this research in progress work aims to unveil potential bias in the accumulation of citations between genders in the field. The authors plan to use panel regression to estimate the gendered citations accumulation in the field, proposing to contribute knowledge on a core dimension of gender bias in academia.

As noted above, the track on Feminist and Queer Approaches to Information Systems in Developing Countries in the IFIP 9.4 Conference constitutes, rather than a point of arrival, the beginning of a conversation that we are looking forward to continuing in and beyond the IFIP 9.4 community. In voicing, with this blog post, the research presented in the track, we call for the open engagement of the IFIP 9.4 community with feminist and queer research, sustaining that, in the spirit of addressing complex societal challenges proper of our Working Group, such a mandate in unachievable in isolation with the struggles and activist responses that feminist and queer research are capable to illuminate.

The Track Chairs Sara Vannini, Ayushi Tandon, Charmaine Wellington, Kristin Braa, Silvia Masiero

IFIP 9.4 Virtual Conference – Registration Open!

The Organising Committee of the First IFIP 9.4 Virtual Conference, which will take place online on 26-28 May 2021 with a theme of “Resilient ICT4D”, is pleased to announce that registration for the Conference is now open!

To attend the virtual event, it is mandatory to register at the IFIP 9.4 Virtual Conference registration page. There is no attendance fee, but registration is needed to be enrolled in the platform where links to the sessions will be shared.

The Conference programme, featuring paper presentations as well as three keynote speeches, four panel sessions, two Special Issue sessions and a paper development workshop, will soon be made available on the IFIP 9.4 website.

We look forward to a great Conference! All the best,

The IFIP 9.4 Virtual Conference Co-Chairs