Contextual reflections on innovations in an interconnected world: theoretical lenses and practical considerations in ICT4D – Part 2

Introduction

An increasingly interconnected world provides a platform and opportunities for information and communication technologies (ICTs) to support the sustainable attainment of economic, social and environmental development. These interconnections can also pose challenges to be navigated on the path to sustainable development. This editorial highlights the challenges and offers papers that move the field forward in investigating some of these challenges.

As highlighted in Part 1 of this Special Issue (3, 2018), ‘Key elements in the ongoing work towards sustainable development, will be the ability of stakeholders in development initiatives to collaboratively and effectively design, implement and evaluate innovations that will be adopted and utilized within specific development contexts and environments.’ A whole-of-society approach is useful in recognizing the importance of and encouraging co-operation in responding to development challenges (Commonwealth Secretariat, 2015). Part 2 of this Special Issue includes papers related to community contexts, and also includes business-related contexts for development, reflecting aspects of the whole-of-society approach. In addition, theories, methods and praxis that influence development and its supporting mechanisms are discussed.

In this Special Issue, some papers involve the use of abduction for theory development (e.g. Yeo & Grant) while others focus on design-related mechanisms to support development goals, through for example action design research (Sein, Henfridsson, Purao, Rossi, & Lindgren, 2011), design to inform theory development, and design science research methodologies. Earlier work has explored aspects related to the role of design in ICT4D initiatives (Barclay, 2014; Grobler & de Villiers, 2017; Islam & Grönlund, 2011; Li, Thomas, Rana, & Stoner, 2017; Ngonzi, 2010; Smith & Turpin, 2017; Uwaoma & Mansingh, 2018; Van Biljon, Marais, & Platz, 2017). In the following sections we reflect on the use of abduction and the concept of ‘design science for development.’

Abduction in explanatory-oriented theory development in ICT4D research

Davison and Martinsons (2016) noted that theories developed and tested in one context may not be adequate or valid for another context. Much of the ICT research in the explanation category is of a quantitative, confirmatory nature which requires that the researcher develop a set of hypotheses typically based on review and analysis of the extant literature. However, in many situations it is impossible for the researcher to identify all relevant hypotheses. To address this problem Osei-Bryson and Ngwenyama (2011) developed a data mining based method for the automatic abduction of hypotheses from data that is consistent with guidance from Peirce (1974) and Popper (1968). We suggest that with regards to the explanation category of theory that ICT4D researchers should consider including abduction methods in their studies (e.g. Osei-Bryson & Ngwenyama, 2014) and consider also utilizing the Hybrid Process for Empirically-based Theory Development previously presented by Kositanurit, Osei-Bryson, and Ngwenyama (2011).

ICT4D-oriented design science

The traditional design science research methodology (Peffers, Tuunanen, Rothenberger, & Chatterjee, 2007) includes the following phases: Identify Problem & Motivate, Define Objectives of a Solution, Design & Development, Demonstration, Evaluation, and Communication. An important question is whether there should be any differences between an ICT4D-oriented designer of ICT artifacts and other designers with respect to the application of this methodology. We suggest that there should be, for while it may be reasonable to expect that the resulting artifact should faithfully address the identified ‘primary’ system requirements/solution objectives (i.e. those identified in the traditional execution of the Define Objectives of a Solution phase), there may be additional unstated ICT4D specific outcomes that can also be accommodated in such design. For given a set of identified ‘primary’ system requirements (or solution objectives) in some cases there are multiple relevant design alternatives and so in the Design & Development phase the designer could design an artifact that adequately addresses the ‘primary’ system requirements/solution objectives while as much as possible also addressing additional ICT4D related concerns. Examples of ICT4D-oriented concerns include:

• Address wider contextual feasibility concerns (e.g. technically/technologically feasible & sustainable, economically sustainable, environmentally sustainable, informal legal constraints, cultural concerns & constraints, political concerns & constraints)

• Attempt to maximize formally unstated ICT4D ‘collateral’ benefits. Examples of collateral benefits include: support the development of national unity, support the development of national self-determination, poverty reduction, violence prevention & crisis resolution, reduce ethnicity-based injustice, reduce gender-based injustice. This is consistent with the DSRM being concerned with ethical values raised (e.g. Myers & Venable, 2014; Pal, 2017).

• Attempt to minimize formally unstated ICT4D ‘collateral’ damages. Examples of collateral damages include: reduction in employment, damages to the physical environments, increased vulnerability to privacy and other security violations

Every information system operates within some context; therefore, it would appear that adequate contextual reflections should be included in the design science research methodology (DSRM) at a minimum with respect to the Define Objectives of a Solution and the Design & Development phases. For example, in some contexts, the specified desired system requirements/solution objectives may not be feasible and/or not sustainable, and so in such situations it would be appropriate to refine/revise the specified desired system requirements/solution objectives rather than to build an artifact whose operation is not feasible and/or not sustainable.

With respect to the Identify Problem & Motivate and Define Objectives of a Solution phases, Hevner, March, Park, and Ram (2004) expresses that relevant ‘business needs’ for a design science are obtained from the exploration of the environment. With an ICT4D orientation our concern would not be just ‘business needs’ but ‘societal needs.’ We suggest that the relevant environment for ICT4D-oriented design science research may go beyond that expressed by Hevner et al. (2004) and should include insights articulated by researchers from the ICT4D and other research communities whose focus is on liberation and development of struggling nations and marginalized groups (e.g. Pal, 2017; Winschiers-Theophilus & Bidwell, 2013).

With respect to the Design & Development phase, the design of an artifact includes the search for possible solutions that satisfy what we refer to here as the identified ‘primary’ system requirements/solution objectives. The ‘solution space’ of possibly relevant solution artifacts may thus be limited by the ‘search space’ of the researcher designer. An interesting question is whether with respect to the design of ICT4D oriented artifacts this ‘search space’ is sufficiently inclusive to also contain relevant insights, practices and other forms of knowledge of traditional societies and cultures.

The discussion above, while obviously not exhaustive, does suggest that it could be useful for ICT4D researchers to not only engage in design science research (DSR) but also reflect on the adequacy and appropriateness of the mainstream formulation of the DSR process. Our aim is to encourage ICT4D researchers to not just do DSR research but to also engage in reflection/critique on the appropriateness and adequacy of mainstream approaches to DSR in the context of ICT4D research & practice, and if necessary provide relevant enhanced approaches. It should be noted that researchers such as Sein et al. (2011), Drechsler and Hevner (2016), Mullarkey, Hevner, and Ågerfalk (2019) and others have done such reflection/critique and offered what they believe to be appropriate enhanced approaches. It should also be noted that a DSR Methodology (DSRM) is itself a DSR artifact, whether it be the process models of Peffers et al. (2007), Sein et al. (2011), or Drechsler and Hevner (2016). It is therefore possible that one or more existing DSRMs (e.g. Peffers et al., 2007; Sein et al., 2011) could be used to explore whether there is a need for ICT4D appropriate DSR methodologies and also the characteristics of such methodologies. Such an approach could also include insights from related research such as HCI4D (Pal, 2017; Winschiers-Theophilus & Bidwell, 2013) and work-systems theory (e.g. Alter, 2013).

The application of an existing DSRM in given context should provide opportunities for learning, and may even provide insights useful for the design of more appropriate DSRM. Sein et al.’s (2011) Action Design Research methodology includes Reflection & Learning activities. Mullarkey et al. (2019) in their elaborated ADR model include Reflection and Learning activities in the four ADR stages of Diagnosis, Design, Implementation and Evolution. This suggests that it is recognized that reflection and learning based on applications of existing DSRMs may result in the ‘evolution’ of such DSRMs into ones that are more appropriate to the contexts of ‘developing’ countries and marginalized communities.

In closing this section we raise the issue of whether the appropriate exploration space for reflection and learning should involve wider coverage than ICT theory and practice. Several relevant questions follow from this including:

• Should a DSRM methodology also involve the deliberate consideration of whether there are ICT4D relevant design principles that can be obtained via reflection on the process path(s) involved in the design and/or development in local contexts of informal ICT and non-ICT artifacts? For example, what was designed to be simply an industrial steel drum in another part of the world was transformed by marginalized communities in the island of Trinidad into a musical instrument that now has worldwide use and acclaim. The activity that we raise here is partly covered by Principle 1 (Practice-inspired research) of stage 1 of the Sein et al.’s (2011) Action Design Research (ADR) methodology.

• Should a DSRM design phase involve the question: for what other possible important problem(s) could a design that meets the requirements of the original problem also satisfy the requirements of the other problem? If such a question were to be deliberately and appropriately addressed in the design phase then there would be opportunities for a given artifact to address adequately multiple problems. This would be particularly important in contexts with severe financial and other resource constraints. Often the fact that a given artifact can also address another problem is discovered rather than being a consideration in the original design. For example though the drug sildenafil was originally developed to treat the cardiovascular problems of hypertension and angina pectoris its more popular use for cardiovascular related male sexual issue doesn’t appear to have been a deliberate design consideration nor was the cardiovascular related issue of the performance of athletes in high altitude environments.

Papers in this special issue

The papers in this issue have been developed from a series of Workshops of the Association for Information Systems Special Interest Group on Information and Communication Technologies & Global Development (AIS SIG GlobDev). This has enabled the compilation of the Special Issue in two parts – this issue (Issue 1, 2019) and the earlier Part 1 (Issue 3, 2018). These workshops have provided a useful forum to facilitate the discussion and generation of research ideas to support the assessment and development of ICT4D innovations as we seek to contribute to inclusive, equitable development practices in an increasingly interconnected world. The interconnections among research projects, participants and researchers help to further the knowledge of what we know about how ICT enables the global economy by enabling local needs to be met in a manner that preserves the ability of the planet to support human life.

The papers of this special issue involve theoretical lenses and practical considerations in ICT4D. Theoretical considerations are an important part of some of the papers in this Special Issue Part 2, and many of the papers focus on research related to the Business Contexts in ICT4D. Papers which explored Community Contexts in ICT4D and Government & Policy Making Contexts were included in the first issue of the two-part Special Issue (Issue 3, 2018). The contributions of each paper in this Special Issue Part 2 are discussed below.

Sein, Thapa, Hatakka and Sæbø, in the first paper (‘A Holistic Perspective on the Theoretical Foundations for ICT4D Research’) discuss three groups of theories that the authors propose are needed to have a holistic perspective: (1) Development theories, (2) Theories conceptualizing ICT, and (3) Theories on transformative processes linking ICTs and development. It is noted that the context in which the ICT is applied is critical to the understanding. With a focus on theoretical premises of ICT4D, the authors provide examples of theories used within the three categories. Five agendas for research within ICT4D are then proposed: (1) Theorizing ICT4D, (2) Multiple Levels of Analysis, (3) Moving from Understanding to Intervention Studies, (4) The philosophical bases of ICT4D and (5) Expanding ICT4D Research to the Developed World. In their paper, Sein et al. also highlight the need for utilizing opportunities to support knowledge creation while identifying solutions to development challenges through appropriate methodologies, such as action design research.

In the second paper (‘A Knowledge Broker for Collaboration and Sharing for SIDS – The Case of Comprehensive Disaster Management in the Caribbean’), Rao and McNaughton develop a Knowledge Broker architecture to facilitate the identification and sharing of information and knowledge resources supported by open, decentralized content and technology. The architecture is then evaluated using the illustrative scenario of the Comprehensive Disaster Management domain in the Caribbean region.

Nawinna and Venable, in paper 3 (‘Effects of ICT-enabled social capital on inter-organizational relationships and performance: empirical evidence from an emerging economy’), explore the effect of multiple dimensions of social capital, moderated by ICTs on inter-organizational relationships. The authors indicate that the findings suggest that there is a strong positive combined effect of social capital and ICT toward inter-firm strategic alliances. The study facilitates recommendations for enhancing inter-organizational relationships, building social capital and trust and enabling collaboration.

Diniz, Sequeira and van Heck, in paper 4 (‘Taxonomy of digital community currency platforms’) analyze 22 digital community currency platforms, utilizing a taxonomy which they developed based on platform architecture, governance, transactionality and virtuality. Four groups were identified – local, proprietary, commons and cyber. The study suggests areas for consideration in the design of digital payment platforms.

The use of ICTs for development can also be seen in business as highlighted in the following papers. The era of globalization presents new requirements for design and operation of the information systems of a global organization. ICT4D research must explore not only inadequately explored value-adding questions but also consider applying non-traditional approaches to data analysis and theory development. The authors of papers 5 and 6 provide examples of such approaches. The Technology, Organization, Environment (TOE) framework of Tornatzky and Fleischer (1990) can be considered to be a flexible generic theory that allows for the formulation of a wide range of research problems that involve context-driven phenomena. However, previously it has been sparingly used in ICT4D research. In paper 5 (‘Exploring the Factors Affecting Global Manufacturing Performance’) Yeo and Grant explore the impacts of ICT and financial factors on sales growth performance. They used the TOE framework to develop their conceptual model then applied a data mining based approach for data analysis. Influenced by the approach of Osei-Bryson and Ngwenyama (2011) they used the results of their data analysis to abduct several new hypotheses that can be considered in future research including: ‘H1: Finance variables are better predictors of manufacturing industry performance than ICTs’; ‘H4: The exploitation of technology is a better predictor of manufacturing industry performance than the amount of technology per se’; ‘H7: The financial context affects the impact of the embedded ICTs on manufacturing industry performance’.

In paper 6 (‘Exploring the effects of ICTs, workforce, and gender on capacity utilization’) Yeo and Grant explore how the impact of ICT investments on productivity is affected by workforce characteristics including female participation. They noted that the issue of capacity utilization has not been adequately explored in IS and ICT4D research, and that previous research has not sufficiently explored the impact of female workers of company performance. They also noted that previous research had indicated that ICTs ‘are powerful tools for enabling women to overcome discrimination, inequality, poverty.’ Their study had several interesting findings including: ‘female permanent employees have a positive impact on capacity utilization.’ Influenced by the approach of Osei-Bryson and Ngwenyama (2011) they used the results of their data analysis to abduct several new hypotheses that can be considered in future research including: ‘H4: The presence of females in the top management results in a positive impact on females in the workforce on capacity utilization.’

Gawin and Marcinkowski in paper 7 (‘Making IT Global – What Facility Management Brings to the Table?’) explored the role of facility management within the context of global information systems development and management. Their research was motivated by several questions:

What happens to the IT of a national business as a growth and expansion period begins? What triggers this need for change, and what new or revised requirements would these decisions have on the existing IT infrastructure? What is the evolution path of IT within Facility Management while growing from domestic to global?

Based on insights obtained through a Participatory Action Research (PAR) project, they developed an expansion model for a globalizing company and identified issues related to its application. They also identified implications of their findings such as: in addition to the previously identified issues related to currency, time zones, languages and regulations, a ‘global view of both the data and processes that even occur in different geographical locations’ must also be considered.

Together, the papers in this Special Issue reflect ICT4D research exploring innovations in an interconnected world, and sharing insights and contributions to theory, practice and policy in development contexts.

Acknowledgements

We wish to express our appreciation to all the authors who submitted papers to the Association for Information Systems Special Interest Group on Global Development Workshops and revised their papers for this Journal’s special issue. We also wish to express our gratitude to the associate editors and reviewers, as well as the Journal’s production team. We specially thank Prof. Sajda Qureshi, Editor-in-Chief, and Prof. Judy van Biljon and Prof. Alan Hevner for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this Special Issue Editorial.