![Sample our Global Development journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5929/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Global-Development.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This paper reconstructs the major points of criticism of both research and practice of Information and Communication Technologies for/and Development (ICT4D/ICTD). Since ICT4D/ICTD was established both as a stream in development work and as an academic field of study, numerous critical reflections on its norms, theories, methods, and consequences were published. This paper provides a first comprehensive compilation and synthesis of what the authors term ICT4D critique. The authors recount criticism about the modus operandi of ICT4D research, the alleged weakness of theories and lack of quality, research gaps, and the politics of ICT4D research. They further recite criticism of the neoliberal orientation of ICT4D practice, the lack of user-centric projects, Eurocentrism and techno-optimism, and the lack of ethical reflection in the field. This paper is intended to serve as a resource and point of reference for students, researchers, and practitioners, in particular those who are new to the field.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the editorial board and anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback and guidance. We also kindly thank our colleague Jared Moore for his review of the paper. The work of the authors is supported by the Institutional Strategy of the University of Tübingen (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, ZUK 63). The paper originated in the context of the project Ethical Implications of IT export to sub-Saharan Africa: Bridging the Digital Divide with Value-Laden Technology? (ELISA) at the International Center for Ethics in the Sciences and Humanities, University of Tübingen.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Throughout the paper, we refer to ICT4D because most articles that were reviewed use the term or originate in this stream. However, probably all criticism compiled here is relevant for both ICT4D and ICTD. Some of the work reviewed in this paper also stems from the field of Human-Computer Interaction for Development (HCI4D) (see Toyama (Citation2010)).
2 We thank an anonymous reviewer for referring us to this guide on conducting literature reviews in information systems research. However, other than in a Systematic Literature Review (SLR), the present paper does not synthesize and analyze a body of (qualitative and quantitative) findings in a specific field (Okoli and Schabram (Citation2010, p. 4)). Rather, it focuses on the critical claims made therein about ICT4D research or practice.
3 We thank an anonymous reviewer who has pointed us to some more recent relevant contributions that we included for the sake of recency and completeness. This said, as another reviewer mentioned, we are working with a ‘moving target,’ and new works that engage critically with ICT4D are published during the time of writing and peer review. It is thus possible that we omitted some relevant recent contributions in our review. An appendix with the literature we reviewed is provided at the end of the paper.
4 ‘Smart economics’ refers to a development policy advanced by international development institutions and in the World Development Report. It is tied to neoliberal feminism and the idea that women are crucial to advancing economic growth and to expanding markets. Critics have pointed out the policy’s overwhelming focus on growth rather than women’s socio-economic well-being and the recognition of reproductive labor (Benería (Citation2016); Calkin (Citation2015)).
5 In a recent opinion, Díaz Andrade and Techatassanasoontorn (Citation2021) argue that ICT4D exhibits an overemphasis on digital inclusion to the extent of ‘digital enforcement.’ In this paradigm, individuals are stripped of their choice not to engage with technology.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Laura Schelenz
Laura Schelenz studied American Studies and Peace and Conflict Research in Heidelberg and Frankfurt, Germany, with stays abroad in the USA and Hungary. She was a conflict researcher for four years and worked with human rights organizations in Germany. Since September 2017, Laura works as a researcher at the International Center for Ethics in the Sciences and Humanities and engages primarily with questions of ethics, technology, gender, and race.
Maria Pawelec
Maria Pawelec studied Politics and Public Administration and Contemporary European Studies in Konstanz, Istanbul, Bath and Berlin. She then worked for the Robert Bosch Foundation on projects to promote European cohesion, close relations with the EU’s neighbouring countries, and good governance. In 2016, Maria joined the International Center for Ethics in the Sciences and Humanities. Her research interests include digitalization, development and democratization, migration, populism, and EU foreign policy.