The following article, forwarded to me by Michael Schudson, is out of
place in ongoing discourse, but if/when we get to strategies of positive
action and all the ignorance that route entails, this article strikes me
as one interesting starting point.
mike
-----
>From mschudso@weber.ucsd.edu Fri Feb 18 12:32:30 2000
"Honda, Keith" <Keith.Honda@asm.ca.gov>
Subject: RE: Digital Divide funding: Comrades vs. competitors
To: "'digitaldivide@list.benton.org'" <digitaldivide@list.benton.org>
Why Can't We Fly Across the Digital Divide (KMH 2/3/2000)
Five years ago, the only ones talking about the digital divide were staff
members at an obscure federal agency: the NTIA (National Telecommunications
and Information Administration). Today, there is a mad rush to provide
solutions to the digital divide problem. However, in our rush to fix the
digital divide - and earmarking millions of dollars on new programs - are we
creating programs that are destined for failure? While I believe that
bridging the digital divide is essential, it remains unclear whether current
efforts will succeed unless conventional wisdom is challenged.
The current approach to the digital divide reminds me very much of the
failed projects I saw overseas as a Peace Corps Volunteer. In my travels
overseas, water systems and other projects were found in a state of
disrepair, only a short time after they were built. Though local people
were trained to fix the pumps and pipes, the unforgiving climate and the
lack of funds to buy spare parts destined these projects for failure. The
more complex a project, the increased likelihood of breakdown.
With this realization, Peace Corps and other agencies developed an
alternative approach to conventional wisdom, now known as "appropriate
technology." The most appropriate technology was that which could be built
with local materials and maintained by local people. What we learned was
that it was easier to design a complex solution that would fail, than a
simple one that worked.
The appropriate nature of a technology was not only dependent on the cost
and sustainability. For a project to succeed, it was essential that the
technology be consistent with the behavioral or cultural norms of the
community. Take the example of a water system that piped water to each
house in a village.
Consultants who came to build the water system, asked villagers whether they
wanted water piped into their homes. The villagers stated that they wanted
the water system. However after the project was completed, consultants were
confounded when they learned that villagers continue to walk to the well for
water. Villagers continued life as though the water system was not there -
they continued to spend hours at the well, washing clothes, and helping each
other as they drew water from the well.
In their rush to provide a solution, the consultants never learned enough to
ask the "appropriate" questions. Villagers continued to use the well,
because it was more than just a location to collect water - it functioned as
gathering place - a place where the community came together. The water
system was the functional opposite: the water system isolated them into
separate homes. In the end, the consultants were disappointed that the
solution didn't work and blamed the villagers for asking for something they
really did not want. In contrast, the villagers were happy, they had never
intended to change their way of life, but they were pleased to have received
the latest offering from generous overseas donors.
This project, and other projects like it, failed because the well meaning
consultants were never able to see the world from the view of the people
that they were proposing to help. Though consultants could see the well,
they never understood the value or function of the well in the lives of the
community members. The consultants never considered the chasm between their
point of view and the lives of the community. Rather than building a bridge
over the chasm, the consultants literally flew over it, spent plenty of
money, and left after a few weeks. There was never meaningful involvement
of community members in verifying the problem or designing the solution.
In our rush to provide a solution to the digital divide, we cannot allow our
good intentions to supplant critical thought. If we fly across the chasm
that is the digital divide, we will never gain an appreciation for the depth
and width of that divide. We must build a bridge with a firm foundation on
each side of the divide.
We must challenge conventional wisdom which assumes that technology, in and
of itself, enhances the quality of life. We must accept the responsibility
to work intimately with the communities we are proposing to help and to
assess the "appropriateness" of our efforts. The projects which are most
likely to succeed in bridging the digital divide will be identified not by
how much change they bring to a given community, but by how seamlessly they
are able to integrate technology into the existing fabric of a community.
* Keith Honda
* Chief of Staff
* Assembly District 23
* 100 Paseo de San Antonio #300
* San Jose CA 95113
* voice: 408.269.6500
* fax: 408.277.1036
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 17:54:08 PST