Many working in development today believe that if poor people are given access to information and communication technologies, they will be better able to claim their rights and improve their lives. While this approach has great potential, care must be taken to ensure it does not perpetuate unequal power relations in rural communities.

Two reports from ActionAid International evaluate the introduction of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to rural communities in India, Burundi and Uganda. The ICT projects link to existing Reflect projects in these countries involving groups of adults who have been meeting regularly to discuss local issues and come up with action plans.

ActionAid’s ‘Reflect ICT’ projects aim to enable the Reflect groups to identify their information needs, learn how to meet them, and gain confidence to claim their rights. ActionAid’s approach is based on the idea that ICTs can be used by poor people to advance their own development.

The project is being tested with 91 groups in Burundi, 114 groups in Orissa, India, and 25 groups in Uganda. Each of these communities faces different problems: conflict and displacement in Burundi, migration and labour exploitation in India, and HIV/AIDS in Uganda.

The reports find that:

• Overall, the projects have been successful in improving communication, accountability and participation within communities: in India and Uganda information flows to women improved, and in Burundi ethnic barriers were broken down.
• Target communities were, in general, not introduced to modern ICTs. The focus was on more affordable or traditional means of communication chosen by the communities (for example songs, radios, newsletters).
• Radio was very popular as a tool for information, communication and advocacy.
• Project management was problematic, with misunderstandings within communities as to the objectives of the projects, and differences between project coordinators and field officers.
• It was sometimes difficult to distinguish between the impacts of Reflect in general, and Reflect ICT.

Key recommendations include:

• The projects should be continued and expanded in different contexts within the three countries, with increased funding and more careful analysis and planning.
• The research aspect of Reflect ICT should be strengthened and the results better channelled to the global ‘ICT for development’ community, including through an international workshop.
• Partnerships should be built with other ICT for development groups.
• ICTs should be used to strengthen local traditions of communication, rather than to impose western modes of communication.
• ICT projects should be aware of the power dynamics operating locally so as not to widen gaps between rich and poor people.
• The ‘bottom-up’ approach needs to be managed carefully to avoid confusion and conflict.

ICTs by themselves are in no way enough to bring about a reduction in poverty. It is important to make sure ICTs find their place in mainstream development initiatives.

Source(s):
‘Evaluation Report on the Reflect ICTs Project’, ActionAid: London, by Harsha Liyanage, 2005
‘ICT for Development: Empowerment or Exploitation? Learning from the Reflect ICTs Project’, ActionAid: London, by Hannah Beardon, 2004 (PDF) Full document.

Funded by: UK Department for International Development

id21 Research Highlight: 12 February 2007

Further Information:
Hannah Beardon
ActionAid
Hamlyn House
Macdonald Road
Archway
London N19 5PG
UK

Tel: +44 (0)20 7561 7561
Fax: +44 (0)20 7263 7599
Contact the contributor: hannahb@actionaid.org

Actionaid, UK

Other related links:
'Understanding the connections between ICTs and poverty'

'Can community telecentres reach the most disadvantaged in Africa?'

'Assessing effective adult literacy programmes to find what works'

'China commits to ICTs-based distance learning and e-learning'

'Beyond being ‘open for business’: monitoring the impact of telecentres'