Does purpose of use matter? Influences on developmental use versus personal use by low-income farmers

ABSTRACT

In this research we examine the influences on use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) for developmental purposes versus personal purposes such as communication and entertainment. We surveyed 145 low-income farmers in rural India who used ICTs at public-access centers. Our study revealed that factors influencing ICT use for developmental purposes differed from those influencing ICT use for personal purposes. Information quality, relative advantage, self-efficacy, and availability of other services were important determinants of developmental use but not personal use. For personal use, effort expectancy and cost were important. Policy implications for users and providers are discussed.

KEYWORDS:

• India
• rural
• low-income farmers
• telecenter
• developmental ICT use
• personal ICT use

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 People living in poverty - defined as less than US$1.90 a day (2011 purchasing power parity). The 2–3 billion people in the world who live in poverty and have low incomes are often referred to as people at the Base of the economic Pyramid (BOP) (Prahalad, 2009). In this research, we use the broad term of ‘low-income farmers’ to refer to farmers at the BOP.

2 ‘Development’ has been conceptualized in different ways ranging from increased financial well-being, to health and human development (Thapa & Sæbø, 2014). In this research we interpret development to mean increased financial well-being and is utilitarian.

3 Some researchers have suggested adding a third category of mixed or dual use that includes both utilitarian and hedonic (e.g., Nkwe & Cohen, 2017). Since our interest in this paper is to understand why ICTs are not used for developmental purposes, we classified purpose of use into developmental, and all other uses into a general category that we call ‘personal use’.

4 The three indices we created were (1) Index of information quality (‘information is current,’ ‘information is reliable (usually has no errors),’ and ‘information provided is easy to understand’); (2) Index of effort expectancy (‘easy to find information’ and ‘staff make it easy to find information’); and (3) Index of staff helpfulness (‘staff have helped you learn,’ and ‘You get adequate assistance in using the computer.’)

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Kamala Gollakota

Kamala Gollakota is a Professor of Management at the University of Redlands. She received her Ph.D. in Management Science from the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee. She is a graduate of XLRI, India. She has published numerous articles that have appeared in books and journals such as Journal of Management Studies, Information Technology for Development, Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries (EJISDC), IEEE Transactions in Engineering Management, Journal of Management History, Decision, and the Journal of the International Associations for Case Studies. She has co-authored a textbook Strategic Management that was published by Prentice-Hall (India). Her research interests have included organizational decline and turnaround, downsizing, and corporate governance. Her current research interests are centered around the role of business organizations in improving the world and include research on the use of ICT in developing countries.

James B. Pick

James B. Pick is Professor of Business in School of Business at University of Redlands. He is the author of 170 peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and proceedings papers in the research areas of management information systems, geographic information systems, urban studies, population, and renewable energy, and author or co-author of thirteen books. His current research focuses on spatial statistical analysis of global and US technology trends, locational privacy, geography of the sharing economy, and ICT4D in India’s rural areas. His research funding includes grants from Ford Foundation, U.S. Small Business Administration, and Esri Inc. He holds a B.A. from Northwestern University, M.S. from Northern Illinois University, and Ph.D. from University of California, Irvine.

Manju Singh

Manju Singh is Professor of Economics and Head in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences in the Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur, India. Her major research interests are development economics, higher education, technology diffusion, gender, and diversity management. She received Sir Ratan Tata Post-Doctoral Fellowship Award from London School of Economics (2011-2012), ICSSR Fellowship, Assoc. Fellowship at IIAS, Shimla, full scholarship for the Global Network of Government Innovators at KSG, Harvard University, Fellowship at University of Windsor, Canada, and Visiting Fellowship at Wawasan University, Penang, Malaysia. She worked as Hub Coordinator for Community Based Participatory research and also a UNESCO chair certified mentor. Extensive experience in action research projects funded by Ford Foundation and field experience with India Government funding agencies and Planning Commission. She supervised over 15 research scholars and has several publications in peer-review journals. She holds B.A. and M.S. in Economics from Jodhup University and Ph.D in Economics from the Sardar Patel Institute of Economics and Social Science Research.