Advancing the Development of Contextually Relevant ICT4D Theories - From Explanation to Design

Much of formal human activities in the contemporary world has been overly influenced by the world-views of the countries characterised as Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) countries (Henrich et al., 2010; Jones, 2010), though such countries do not constitute the majority of the world’s population, nor do they have a monopoly on being educated or democratic. A better acronym would hence be WIR, given that amongst developing countries (also referred to as “countries with developing economies”, e.g., as in Fashoro & Barnard, 2021; Iliya et al., 2021 etc.), there are those who rate highly on Education and Democracy indicators, though they may not necessarily be Western in orientation, fully Industrialised or economically Rich (WIR). The influence of WIR countries has had a significant impact on IS research including Information and Communication Technology for Development (ICT4D) research, where published research typically involves theories and research methodologies and sometimes even communication styles that are required to meet standards established by those of the WIR worldview (e.g., Jones, 2010).

WIR-influenced or approved IS research has focused on the importance of theoretical contributions. To a large extent published IS research has involved explanatory theoretical contributions, although in recent years there has been some acceptance of the fact that there is a taxonomy of theory types appropriate to IS, i.e., analysis, explanation, prediction, explanation & prediction, and design & action (Gregor, 2006). Clarke and Primo (2012) offer a perspective on theory that could be considered to be helpful in the ICT4D context: “Theories are like maps: the test of a map lies not in arbitrarily checking random points but in whether people find it useful to get somewhere”. In the ICT4D context, an important question is what would be the desirable somewhere? Should the articulation of an IS theory be primarily about the development and/or reputation of the IS field, or also about advancing the opportunities for Kujiamulia Na Kujiendeleza (i.e., self-determination and self-development) within the Ubuntu framework (Mnyaka & Motlhabi, 2005; Murithi, 2006)? It would seem that the test of a given theory would not be about p-values, but about whether it is useful for making advancements towards achieving the desired level of “development”.

There has been a substantive body of published research on ICT4D and its related topical area of IS in countries with developing economies over the past two or so decades. We have also experienced the emergence and maturation of several journals dedicated to ICT4D, examples of which include Information Technology and International Development (ITID), Information Technology for Development (ITD), and the Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries (EJISDC). However, the question that Walsham (2012), in reflecting on the future IS research agenda, poses – i.e., “Are we making a better world through ICTs?” – remains relevant and significant even as we ponder on the contributions that ICT4D research has made to the broader discipline of IS. So too do the questions that Sahay (2016) asks:

• Who are “We”? – Who constitutes ICT4D?

• Better for whom? – Who is ICT4D and ICT4D-research benefiting, why?

• What do we mean by “better”? – Does ICT always lead to a better world?

These questions are also reflected by Davison and Martinsons (2016) in their appeal for greater consideration of local context in IS research, so as to advance the discipline, and learn from developing world contexts. However, even the very definition of whom the “developing world is”, remains at play. Some would argue that the developing world includes the global south with the exclusion of the advanced economies in that hemisphere. Others however, see it as including “migrant, marginalized, and under-served communities in ‘developed’ countries” (WIR countries). For purposes of this special issue, we adopt the broader scope and include “migrant, marginalized, and under-served communities in ‘developed’ countries” into the definition.

To the questions raised above, we add: What have been the core contributions of ICT4D research to the core body of IS knowledge? What theories presently applicable to the broader IS discourse can claim origin in ICT4D research? How has ICT4D research “matured” over the last few decades, and; What are, or should be, the new frontiers of research in ICT4D?

Walsham et al. (2007) challenged the IS community to expand the research on IS in developing countries in various ways:

• expand the geographical spread of both the research sites as well as the authors represented in IS in developing countries research. A recent study by Bai (2018) indicates that this is not happening fast enough, or broadly enough, and that there are still geographical areas/regions/countries and/or people-groups “left behind”;

• expand the types of organisations being studied and the contexts in which those organisations are studied;

• expand the levels of analysis employed in research studies in this area – particularly to include communities as a level of analysis;

• expand the variety and significance of topics examined under the aegis of IS in developing countries, and;

• increase the theoretical diversity of research classified as belonging to this area of study.

Davison and Martinsons (2016) note that all “research models and theories are implicitly or explicitly bounded with respect to their contextual applicability” and that the dominant approaches to theory development “tends to ignore indigenous constructs that may influence behaviour”. These statements apply to all five theory types (Gregor, 2006), including the type that involves design of artefacts. However, typically studies on “developing” countries by researchers in WIR countries do not adequately include local contexts and the perspectives of the indigenous population (e.g., Mama, 2007). Further, researchers located in the “developing” world are typically not included as authors of papers. This situation is neither sustainable nor advantageous for the discipline. For as noted by Davison and Martinsons (2016) “intellectual … hegemony of ‘The West’ will not be universally acceptable in a polycentric world”.

Davison and Martinsons (2016) further raise the questions: “Do we need non-Western theories? Further, if we do need them, how could we develop them?” We posit that the answer to the first question is Yes, and for the second question the answer would have to involve the inclusion of ICT4D researchers who are physically located in the “developing” world and thus more likely to be intimately knowledgeable about local contexts and indigenous constructs that may be relevant to multiple countries of the developing world.

Despite the explicit and implied advice associated with the questions and comments above, published ICT4D research including those of special issues in contemporary leading IS journals have not only been dominated by the theories of the WIR but also by researchers associated with institutions located in the WIR countries. Thus in the editorial of the JAIS special issue on ICT4D (Sahay et al., 2017) the guest editors state: “Tellingly, none of the authors of the papers in this special issue are from institutions in developing countries. Even though countries such as India and China represent global hotspots of ICT initiatives, research outputs from academics based in these countries is not commensurate with the ICT activity that takes place there”.

Yet O’Sullivan (2021) noted that “A people’s capacity to tell its own stories … and to choose how these stories are presented beyond its own citizenry is an expression of the right to self-determination. … Data sovereignty is both a precursor to self-determination and an expression of an indigenous capacity to know and record their own stories”. Similarly self-determination in ICT4D research may not only require the opportunity to use non-WIR theories in research considered acceptable for publication in leading IS journals but also Methodology Sovereignty in the form of the opportunity to select and develop appropriate research methodologies including non-WIR research methodologies. Osei-Bryson and Bailey (2019) suggest that there should be research on developing ICT4D-oriented design science research methodologies (DSRMs) and provide examples of concerns for such DSRMs. Clapham et al. (2021) presented a “an Aboriginal-led community-based research project” that aimed to avoid being influenced by the “colonialist narrative”.

1. OVERVIEW ON THE PAPERS

This special issue aimed to contribute to the development of non-Western theories in the five theory types of Gregor (2006) and in all genres (Te'eni et al., 2015) to contribute to the development of the research capabilities and visibility of the “developing” world. Not surprisingly we were only able to partially achieve this goal, in part due to the fact the intellectual training of ICT4D researchers and the typical reviewer is still heavily influenced by the methods of the WIR countries, and also the need to advance towards our goal in incremental steps of producing ICT4D valuable “products of theorizing” (Weick, 1995). Guidance from the Ubuntu principles also suggests that as Guest Editors we should not journey radically from the norms of the host journal. Yet the selected papers do offer valuable contributions to the ICT4D research literature. They involve a variety of topics, types of theories and research methodologies.

Thirty-one (31) papers were submitted for this Special Issue (SI) and all except one were sent out for reviews; the excluded paper could not be reasonably considered to have any fit with the objectives of the SI. Authors of twenty-four (24) papers were given the opportunity to respond to the outputs of Round 1 of the review process. Based on the outputs of the subsequent review cycle, eight papers emerged as satisfying the rigorous EJIS review criteria, as adduced by reviewers and the editorial team, while also mapping closely to the established objectives of the SI. It is these eight papers that appear in the SI.

Studies of ICT4D projects often do not adequately consider the value-adding context-based potential of actors of the local “beneficiary” community. In paper 1 (“How do technologists do “ICT for development”? A contextualised perspective on ICT4D in South Africa”), Abubakre & Mkansi explore digital technologists’ motivations for implementing ICTs to address socio-economic issues. They “propose three mechanisms (emotional connectedness, user-centred technologies, and symbiotic relations) through which digital technologists undertake ICT4D to exercise their agency and enhance the socio-economic well-being of disadvantaged members of society”.

It is known that there is dichotomy between the knowledge systems of the WIR countries and those of the Global South. In paper 2 (“In-betweenness in ICT4D research: critically examining the role of the researcher”), Jiminez, Abbott & Dasuki “explore[s] the role of the researcher from the position of in-betweenness”. Using a “dialogical process of retrospective reflections based on ICT4D projects in Nigeria, Peru and West Africa”, the authors identify how in-betweeness is experienced. They “demonstrate that a researcher positionality of in-betweenness in ICT4D research can increase awareness of nuanced researcher roles and potentially avoid ethical dilemmas and reproducing biases”.

The majority of the population of Sub-Saharan African (SSA) live nearly 1.5 miles away from paved roads. This affects their access to both hospitals and banks. Thus not surprisingly, SSA hospitals are increasingly engaged in “billing access via mobile payment platforms”. However, the issue of impacts of mobile payment platforms (MPP) on healthcare service quality (HSQ) in developing country contexts has not been adequately addressed. In paper 3 (“Leapfrogging Healthcare Service Quality in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Utility-Trust Rationale of Mobile Payment Platform”), Nwankpa & Datta employ the classical positivistic approach to explore the impacts of MPP use on individual patients’ trust, commitment, and perceptions about the quality of health services received from the health services organisation. Their results “reveal a distinct amalgam of MPP utility, trust, and commitment as antecedents to HSQ perceptions”.

Severe organisational damage can result from cyber-security breaches and it has been recognised that employee behaviour is a major weak spot. Information security policies (ISPs) aim to improve employees’ compliance behaviour but much research has not been done on ISPs in the ICT4D context. In paper 4 (“Beyond technical measures: a value-focused thinking appraisal of strategic drivers in improving information security policy compliance”), Donalds & Barclay focus on the development of such ISPs. They demonstrate how the Value-Focused Thinking (VFT) methodology, could be used to identify a contextually relevant set of objectives that would be used for the design of an ISP in a developing country context. Among the objectives identified is “promote voluntariness of sharing” which was not identified in any previous VFT study and which might be more feasible in a collectivist non-WIR culture than in an individualistic WIR culture.

Previous research has indicated that mobile payment eco-systems can contribute to digital and financial inclusion. However, few of these studies have explored this phenomenon within the context of informal business organisations in countries with developing economies. In paper 5 (“Merchants’ adoption of mobile payment in emerging economies: The case of unorganized retailers in India”), Mishra, Walsh & Srivastava inductively develop a grounded theory that explains the (non)-adoption of mobile payments by informal retailers in urban India. The emergent theory offers rich explanation of adoption in this context, which goes beyond what could have been found if well-known technology adoption models and frameworks had been used as a starting point. The findings highlight that technology value, regulatory bodies, non-regulatory bodies, merchant dispositions and the interactions between these elements influence mobile payment adoption or non-adoption by the retailers.

The availability of micro-financing is often critical for sustainable poverty-reduction and other aspects of socio-economic empowerment for disadvantaged communities. Given that the effectiveness of micro-financing efforts can benefit from appropriate financial education, in paper 6 (“Designing Financial Education Applications for Development: Applying Action Design Research in Cambodian Countryside”), Zaitsev & Mankinen focus on the intersection of financial literacy education and ICT literacy in the developing country context. They applied “the Action Design Research (ADR) method … from the problem formulation to the formalisation of learning in the form of design principles that can be applied to IT projects in rural and remote locations in any developing country”.

The phenomenon of “how new entrants and incumbents” of a financial ecosystem interact to achieve financial inclusion is in general not well understood, including in countries with developing economies. In paper 7 (“FinTech ecosystem practices shaping financial inclusion: The case of mobile money in Ghana”), Senyo, Karanasios, Gozman, & Baba examine the fintech ecosystem in Ghana and investigate how new fintech entrants interact with more established actors to shape financial inclusion. Using a qualitative, inductive research approach the authors conceptualise three inter-related practices that shape financial inclusion, i.e., (1) innovative and collaborative practices, (2) protectionist and equitable practices, and (3) legitimising and sustaining practices.

The model of digitally organised employment known as crowdwork has been spreading globally. However, there is still a lack of in-depth understanding of the workers’ perspectives of crowdwork in countries with developing economies. In paper 8 (“Crowdwork, digital liminality and the enactment of culturally recognised alternatives to Western precarity: Beyond epistemological terra nullius”), Elbanna & Idowu employ an inductive approach to examine crowdworkers in a developing country to offer a non-WIR perspective of crowdwork. They report that contextual factors that define crowdwork in countries with developing economies propel crowdworkers therein to transition and transform crowdwork from precarious work and into liminal digital long-term employment. The paper thereby demonstrates that examination of theorisations of pertinent IS phenomenon within ICT4D contexts has the potential to alter or redefine WIR conceptualisations of those phenomenon and hence advance IS theorisation.

2. CLOSING COMMENTS

This special issue encouraged submissions from scholars situated in “developing” countries (though not exclusively) whose voices are not often heard, even in published research situated empirically in their home countries. We were open to the diversity of topics, theory types, genres and research methodologies deemed relevant to the “developing” countries, as well as topics concerned with ICTs for Development, regardless of geographic locale. We view this SI as hopefully but one of the building blocks of ICT4D research efforts, particularly of those that involve non-traditional topics and possibly also theories and methodologies that are not based on WIR perspectives.

The CoViD-19 pandemic, increasing inequalities within and between nations, and the increasingly frequent effects of climate disturbance suggest that there may be the need for theories of survival in which ICTs would need to find a feasible fit. The resurgence of distrust of national governments, large corporations and the elite, may suggest the need for theories of Ubuntu-principled nation-building in which ICTs would need to find a feasible fit. This raises several questions for ICT4D and other IS research:

• Who are the main targets of ICT4D theories? Are they policymakers and intellectuals, economic and political elites, or other stakeholders including the “common people”? Is there a high-priority interest to “enhance knowledge mobilization of results from ICT4D research ” (Van-Biljon & Osei-Bryson, 2020)?

• What is the role and purpose of theory with respect to identifying and navigating feasible paths to sustainable development given the challenges to survival posed by persistent poverty, imperialism, effects of global climate disturbance, pandemics, etc.?

• It is often assumed that theories can be fully explicitly articulated and are “a requisite of knowledge generation” (King, 2021). Yet it is known that in addition to knowledge that can be explicitly described, there is also the category of tacit knowledge. King (2021) notes that “Inquisitive people reflect on what they observe ”. We contend that much of that “reflection” occurs in the subconscious mind and the resulting knowledge is of the tacit type. Indeed in many traditional societies and even in areas of “modern life” the stable generated knowledge is of the tacit type yet it does provide appropriate guidance to get to the desired “somewhere” (Clarke & Primo, 2012). Weick (1995) notes that “theory work can take a variety of forms, because theory itself is a continuum, and because most verbally expressed theory leaves tacit some key portions of the originating insight. These considerations suggest that it is tough to judge whether something is a theory or not when only the product itself is examined. What one needs to know, instead, is more about the context in which the product lives”. What are the implications of this for the development of effective ICT4D theories, particularly in societies where it is the transfer of tacit knowledge that is most appropriate?

• Should the focus of ICT4D knowledge generation be limited to the development of theories, or should it also consider other types of Conceptual Artefacts? Alter (2017) notes that “IS knowledge is not limited to abstractions, and certainly isn’t limited to theories. Non-abstract knowledge includes information, examples and stories”.

• Should non-traditional theories (e.g., Freire, 1996; Hill & Hannafin, 2001; Mills, 2015; Mnyaka & Motlhabi, 2005; Murithi, 2006; Nyerere, 1969; Ura et al., 2011) also be used to guide the development of ICT4D knowledge? Can such non-traditional theories illuminate feasible paths to sustainable development?

  • For example, what were the ICTs that were used by Haitian revolutionaries in the liberation struggle of the late 19th century, or those used by the operators of the “Underground Railroad” of the anti-slavery human rights struggle in the USA? Could their theory of the problem and/or theory of the solution (Majchrzak et al., 2016) that motivated their selection, adaptation and application provide insight for the development of modern ICT4D theories?

  • Cuba, a relatively poor “developing” country that has been subjected to a stifling economic blockade for over sixty (60) years, has still been able to develop a world-class biotechnology sector that has among other achievements produced on its own five (5) effective vaccines for CoViD-19. Could the relevant guiding theories for survival and development in a highly resource-constrained situation provide insights for the development of contextually appropriate solution-oriented ICT4D theories?

It should be noted that we are not suggesting that the questions mentioned above are the most relevant or are all relevant for the development of future contextually relevant ICT4D theories. Rather we are suggesting the development of such theories may involve imaginations, and explorations of questions and situations not typically considered in mainstream IS research.